Skip to main content

Full text of "A letter to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London: containing queries, doubts and difficulties, relative to a vernacular version of the Holy Scriptures. Being an appendix to A prospectus of a new translation of the Bible from a corrected text of the originals, &c"

See other formats 


D^ 

■ 

■  ; 

^-. 

1  ^^i 

5 

t--£.T6 


UNIVERSITY  OFCALi;--    . 
AT    LOS  ANGELES 


A 


E 


E         R 


TO     TH BRIGHT     REVEREND 

THE    LORD     BISHOP     OF     LONDON: 

•ff 

CONTAINING 

QUERIES,    DOUBTS    AND    DIFFICULTIES,     RELATIVE    TO    A 
VERNACULAR    VERSION    OF    THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES. 

BEING      AN 


N         D 


X 


TO  A    PROSPECTUS    OF    A    NEW    TRANSLATION    OF    THE    BIBLE, 
FROM    A    CORRECTED    TEXT    OF    THE     ORIGINALS,    &C. 


BY 


THE    REVEREND    ALEXANDER    G  E  D  D  E  S,    L.LD. 


LONDON: 

PRINTED    BY    J.   DAVIS, 
FOR  ROBERT   TAULDER,  NEW   BON  D-S  T  R  E  E  T, 

M,ECC,LXXXVII. 


DC 

o 


o 


O 


/55 


LETTER,      &c. 


MY     LORD, 

-  W  HEN  I  firft  fat  down  to  tranflate  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  I  knew  I  was  undertaking  a  moft  arduous  tafk ;  but,  I 
confefs,  I  was  not  fufficiently  aware  of  all  the  dilticulties  that  have 
fince  occurred.  If  I  had,  I  ihould  then,  perhaps,  have  prudently 
declined  an  enterprize,  which  I  cannot,  without  pufiUanimity,  now 
reUnquifli. 

However,  as  new  obflacles  are  daily  prefenting  themfelves,  and 

doubts  and  perplexities  feem  to  multiply  in  proportion  as  I  proceed, 

o  jj   I  have  reduced  a  part  of  thefe  into  a  fet  of  Queries,  which  I  beg 

leave  to  lay  before  your  Lordfliip,  as  the  perfon  in  the  kingdom  the 

moft  likely  to  give  me  a  fatisfadory  folution  of  them. 

B  The 


31825 


[  2  ] 

The  firft  queftion  that  naturally  offers  is,  how  far  the  ftlle  and 
phrafeology  of  our  laft  Englifh  Verfion  ought  to  be  adopted  or  re- 
jefted,  in  a  new  tranflatlon  ?  But  to  form  a  juft  idea  of  this  general 
queftion,  it  will  be  proper  to  divide  it  into  different  heads. 

In  the  firft  place,  then,  I  think  it  will  be  by  all  agreed,  that  fuch 
fili"-le  words  or  whole  phrafes,  in  the  old  verfion,  as  are  become  en- 
tirely obfolete,  or  are  of  an  ambiguous  meaning,  or  border  on 
plebeian  tritenefs,  ought,  by  a  new  tranflator,  to  be  rejeded ;  and 
others  fubftituted  in  their  place,  more  agreeable  to  the  prefent  ufage, 
lefs  liable  to  mifconftrudion,  and  further  removed  from  vulgarity. 
But  is  the  fame  liberty  to  be  taken  with  other  words  and  phrafes, 
which,  though  obfolete  in  common  ufe,  are  ftill  intelligible  to  one 
acquainted  with  the  Scripture  ftile,  and  have  in  reality  nothing  in 
them  to  debafe  its  dignity  ? 

For  example,  would  you,  with  fome  faftldious  moderns,  reject 
fuch  words  as  ambuJJmmit,  heritage,  7neet,  ivroth,  banquet,  banner^ 
bereave,  bewail,  potirtray,  difcornfit,  marvel,  obeifance,  progenitors,  and  a 
number  of  fimilar  terms  throughout  the  Bible  ?  Or  would  you  oc- 
cafionally  ufe  them  for  the  fake  of  variety,  energy,  or  euphony  ?  For 
my  part  I  am  inclined  to  think,  and  have  elfewhere  hinted,  that  we 
Ihould  not  only  retain  fuch  old  words  as  are  ftill,  though  rarely  ufed ; 
but  even  revive  many  that  have  gradually  gone  into  dilufe  j  if  they 
be  equally  analogical,  and  at  the  fame  time  more  fignificant  and 
hai-monious  than  thofe  that  cuftom  has  introduced  In  their  room. 

4  With 


[    3     ] 

With  regard  to  whole  phrafes,  it  Is  much  harder  to  form  a  decided 
opinion.  They  are  generally  Hebraifms,  which  have  been  gradually 
incorporated  into  our  language  by  the  different  txanflators  of  the 
Bible,  from  a  laudable  defign  of  reprefenting,  as  exadtly  as  poflible, 
the  air  of  the  originals  ;  and,  though  many  of  them  are  extremely 
abhorrent  from  the  Englifh  idiom,  yet  long  cuftom  and  the  fanAion 
of  religion  have  made  them  familiar  to  our  ear ;  however  indi{lin£tly 
they  may  be  feized  by  our  underftanding — Are  fuch  to  be  retained 
by  a  new  tranflator  ?  or  mollified  and  modernized  into  equivalent 
terms  ? 

It  will  pofTibly  be  faid :  "  A  diftindlion  fhould  be  made.  Some 
*'  Hebraifms  are  fp  contrary  to  our  modes  of  phrafing,  that  they 
*'  cannot  be  retained  without  great  obfcurity ;  whilfl  others,  though 
*'  fomewhat  uncouth,  are  yet  intelligible,  or  may  be  eafily  made  fo 
"  by  a  note.  The  latter  fhould,  the  former  fliould  not  be  adopted 
*'  in  a  vernacular  tranflation." 

But  this  feems,  by  far,  too  vague  an  anfwer.  What  may  appear 
fufficiently  clear  to  one,  may  feem  obfcure  to  another ;  and  in  a 
book,  that  is  read  by  all,  it  is  not  enough  that  the  phrafe  be  intelli- 
gible to  a  few  perfons  only ;  it  fliould  be  as  generally  fo  as  poffible. 
It  is  granted  by  the  greatefl  flicklers  for  verbal  tranflation,  that  the 
phrafeology  of  the  original  ought  to  be  abandoned  for  abfolutc 
perfpicuity :  why  not,  then,  for  a  greater  degree  of  it  ?  efpecially 
where  there  is   no  danger  of  miflaking  the  meaning  by   fuch   a 

licence This  deferv'^es  a  more  attentive  confideration. 

B  2  T  had 


[    4     ] 

I  had  faid  in  my  Prospectus,  that  there  is,  in  our  laft  national 
Verfion,  a  blameable  want  of  uniformity  in  the  mode  of  tranflating. 
It  has  been  hinted  to  me,  that  I  ought  to  have  produced  inftances, 
which  I  now  do  the  more  willingly,  becaufe  it  gives  me  an  opportu- 
nity of  difcufling  the  queftion  under  confideration,  and  others 
conneded  with  it. 

When  I  rank,  among  the  faults  of  a  tranflation,  a  want  of  uni- 
formity in  the  mode  of  rendering,  I  do  not  mean  that  a  tranflator  is 
never  to  diverfify  his  ftile,  or  vary  his  expreflions.  The  contrary 
I  have  laid  down  as  one  of  the  qualities  of  a  good  tranflation.  But 
ftill,  that  diverfity  fhould  be  regulated  by  fome  uniform  and  confiftent 
principle,  from  which  he  fliould  never  deviate,  without  the  moft 
cogent  reafons. 

There  are  many  words,  as  well  as  fentences,  in  the  Bible,  which 
admit,  and  often  require  a  different  renHprJng,  bctdufe  they  have  a 
different  meaning  in  the  original.  But  there  are,  likewife,  many 
words  and  fentences,  that  either  always,  or  at  leaft  in  fimilar  cir- 
cumflances,  have  the  fame  precife  meaning;  and,  confequently, 
fhould  always  be  rendered  in  the  fame,  or  nearly  the  fame  terms ; 
and  this  only  is  the  uniformity  which  I  contend  for.  I  will  now 
give  examples,  both  of  words  and  fentences,  in  which  this  uniformity 
has  not  been  obferved  by  our  laft  tranflators. 

Firft,  of  words And,  here,  I  make  not  much  account  of  fuch 

variations  as  may  poflfibly  be  deemed  fynonimous.     He  would  be  a 

fuperci- 


[     5     ] 

fuperclllous  crltlck,  I  think,  who  fliould  blame  our  tranflators  for 
ufing  indifcriminately  branch  or  bough  ;  fountain  or  fprlng ;  bird  or 
fowl ;  faint  or  weary  ;  d%velling-place  or  habitation  ;  wrathful  or  furi- 
ous ;  pot^  pan  or  cauldron  ;  /£■«/,  tabernacle  or  pavilion ;  aWi?,  ^'^//l?y  or 
<5?^/^ ;  target,  fhield  or  buckler  j  ;«//r^,  Zioo^  or  diadem  ;  w^«/,  maiden^ 
damfel  or  young-woman ;  to  beat-down,  break-down,  throw-down,  de- 
fray or  overthrow;    to  pluck-up,  pluck-out,  root-up  or  root-out',    to 
•zer^//,  to  ;;ji5«r«  or  /o  lament,  &c.    Although,  perhaps,  ftridly  fpeak- 
Ing,  it  would  be  better  to  make  fome  appropriate  diftindion  in  the 
ufe  of  almoft  every  one  of  thefe  and  fuch  terms.*     But  when  we 
find  7^j^  rendered  in  one  place  a  lintel,  in  another  a  po/l ;  nHIN  now 
a  locuf,  and  now  a  grafs-hopper ;  Jl^Jf  7  wormwood  and  hemlock  j  li'lllSp 

nettles 

*  The  copioufnefs  of  a  language  is  fomewhat  like  a  fuperabundance  of  wealth ; 
there  are  few  who  know  how  to  make  a  good  ufe  of  either ;  and  he  only  who  is  bleft 
with  fuperlative  tafte  and  judgment  will  be  kept,  iu  botk  cafec,  from  manifold  abufes^ 
To  fuch  a  degree  has  the  Lexicon  of  our  language  been  gradually  enriched,  that  it  is 
often  more  difficult  to  feleiSl  terms,  than  to  find  them  ;  and  a  proper  choice  is  one  of 
the  principal  charafters  of  good  writing,  For  this  the  Greek  authors  are  peciiliarlyt 
remarkable.  Although  the  ftorehoufe  from  which  they  drew  was  inexhauftible,  yet 
they  feldom  drew  from  it  at  random.  Almoft  every  term,  in  their  beft  compofitions, 
has  a  difcriminating  charafter,  which  is  very  rarely  confounded  with  any  other,  how- 
ever approximating.  But,  in  Greece,  no  one  wrote,  who  had  not  made  a  long  and 
laborious  ftudy  of  the  Greek  tongue ;  whereas,  in  England,  almoft  every  one  is  a 
writer  ;  and  almoft  every  one  gives  a  currency  to  fome  new  impropriety.  Since  your 
Lordfliip's  little  book  appeared,,  and  fince  Johnfon  wrote  his  DiiStionary,  grammatical 
precifion  has  been  more  generally  aimed  at,  than  before ;  but  not  much  attention^  I 
fear,  has  been  given  to  the  fort  of  propriety,  of  which  I  am  fpeaking;  although  that, 
with  a  little  more  variety  and  harmony  in  the  arrangement  of  fentencef,  and  a  more  ra- 
tional application  of  our  indeclinable  particles,  is  all  that  our  language  feems  to  want 
of  the  perfedion,  of  which  it  is  fufceptible. 


[     6.] 

nettles  and  thorns;  ll*K")  hemlock  and  gall'^  HJ^''  an  cw/  and  an  ofirich; 
l£t{£f  //«^«  and  T?/^ ;  JiNp  the  cormorant  and  the  felican ;  7Kti^  /-»''//  and 
the  grave,  &c.  we  cannot  poffibly  but  difapprove  of  fuch  incon- 
gruity in  rendering ;  and  point  it  out  as  a  fault  to  be  fludioufly 
guarded  againft  by  every  tranflator. 

All  this  appears  to  be  indifputable.     But  there  are  words,  in  the 

rendering  of  which,  our  tranflators  took  a  latitude,  which,  though 

it  is  by  no  means  fo  exceptionable  as  the  former,  feems  yet  to  have 

a  certain  want  of  uniformity  in  it,  that  in  fome  meafure  mifrepre- 

fents  the  text ;  and  may  a<5lually  miflead  the  reader.     For  what  reader 

would  imagine  that  Azw,  Jlatute^  decree^  ordinance  were  all  terms  fo 

perfectly  fynonimous,  as  to  be  exprefled  by  one  Hebrew  word  ?  Yet 

pn  is  found  rendered  by  all  thofe  terms.     A  coat  of  mall ^  a  habergeon^ 

a  breajl-plate  and  a  brigandhie  all  imply  a  piece  of  defenfive  armour 

of  much  the  fame  nature  i   yet  I  hardly  think  that  any  one  would 

expert  to  fee  them  all  reprefented  in  the  Original  by  the  fmgle  word 

]'^nti^.     Will  it  appear  any  more  likely  that  12iD  or  miiD  is  tranf- 

lated  with  equal  propriety,  a  fort^  a  hold^  a  Jlrong  hold^  a  cajlle^  a 

bulwark,  a  munition  ?     The  three  firft  are  more  general  terms,    and 

may  denote  any  Jlrong  place,  whether  fo  by  nature  or  art ;  but  the 

three  laft  give  us  the  idea  of  manual  fortification.     In  all  fuch  cafes 

it  would,  in  my  apprehenfion,  be  more  proper  to  ftick  to  one  term, 

which  term  fliould  be  the  mofl  diftindive  and  expreffive  that  could 

be  found. 

We 


-[    7     ] 

We  fhould  not,  perhaps,  even  approve  of  tranflating  the  fame 
Hebrew  vp^ords  by  different  Englifh  ones,  though  of  nearly  the  fame 
import ;  when  thefe,  in  common  acceptation,  have  at  leaft  a  fenfible 
difference  of  meaning  in  magnitude,  intenfity,  degree  or  relation. 
Can  dijloody  a  river,  and  a  brook  be  equally  proper  renderings  of  HK''  ? 
or  a  town  and  a  village  of  n!2  ?  vejfels,  furniture^  Ji^ff^i  injlruments, 
nveaponSf  armour,  artillery  of  w^  ?*  a  caftle  and  a  palace  of  T'tO  ? 
coal  and  hot  coal  of  ^PI^  ?  concubine  and  paramour  of  l£^J}7£3  ?  nephew 
and  grand/on  of  ^DJ  ?  inchanter^  obfervers  of  times  and  footh-fayers 
of  p")^  ?  Thofe  who  wifh  to  fee  more  of  this  diverfity,  may  con- 
fult  Taylor's  Concordance  under  the  words  VP)^.  D?^.  HD.  nJ9. 
^ip-  Dip-  Nnp.  niti^.  D1''-  *]D^  li'SJ.  |n^ 

Nay  further,  I  am  not  fure  but  we  fhould  uniformly  tranflate  the 
fame  Hebrew  worr^  by  the  fame  Englifh  word ;  unlefs  the  former 
have  a  multifarious  meaning;  or  perfpicuity  or  embellifhment  re- 
quire to  vary  the  latter.  If  tabret  be  a  good  rendering  of  *in  why 
tranflate  it  alfo  timbrel?  What  need  is  there  for  tranflating  HJ^'^D  in 
one  place  the  Pleiades,  and  in  another  the  Jeven  Jlars  ?  Why  is 
D'^Dti^  fometimes  rendered  heaven,    fometimes  the  heaven,    fome- 

*  To  {hew  how  little  attentive  our  tranflators  were  to  uniformity  in  rendering  the 
fame  word  even  in  the  very  fame  conftruftion  and  fenfe,  I  fhall  here  give  a  remarkable 
inftance.  Exod.  xxx.  ver.  27,  28.  We  have  the  word  yi,^  three  times  tranflated 
•*  his  veffels:"  yet  in  the  very  next  chapter,  ver.  8,  9.  we  find  the  fame  word,  not 
only  in  the  fame  conftruftion,  but  relatively  to  the  fame  things,  rendered  three  times 
"  his  furniture."  One  can  hardly  fuppofc  that  thcfc  tv\'o  chapters  were  tranflated 
by  the  fame  perfon. 

times 


[     8     ] 

times  ihe  heavens^  and  fometimes  the  air?  Why  C^IJ) — nations^ 
gentiles  and  heathen?  Why  Hr^K  a  vtaiJ,  a  bond-ijuonian,  a  botKH-viaid.^  a 
hand-maid^  ■Si  maid-Jcrvanl?  ^^hy  SVy2r\  s.  pattern,  Si  figure,  a.  like- 
9iefs^  a  form,  a  fiinilitude  ?  Why  >/1J  /i?  <//>,  /o  perijh,  to  give  and 
j'/V/c/  wj>  /y^e?  ^/'2/^ .?  Why  T\'\l^r\  to  befiknt,  to  keepjiknce,  to  /6o/J  owf'i 
peac£,  to  Zi^A/  &«t''j  tongue?  Any  of  thefe  refpedlive  terms,  well- 
chofen  at  firft,  would  furely  be  more  uniform,  and  for  the  moft  part 
more  proper. 

What  has  been  faid  with  regard  to  the  inconfiftency  ajul  incon- 
gruity of  rendering  the  fame  Hebrew  word,  in  the  fame  circum- 
flances,  by  different  vernacular  terms  ;  is  equally  applicable  to  the  ren- 
dering of  different  Hebrew  words  by  the  fame  term.  If  I  have  once, 
ufed  the  word  tabernacle  to  exprefs  pli^D  and  tent  to  exprefs  /HK; 
I  will  uniformly  do  fo  throughout — nor  will  I  confound  either  with 
m.  It  is  hardly  poffible  that  ^DN*-  Ttn.  t^nn-  *^-)0-  T^^h-  and 
77ti^  can  all  be  equally  well  tranflated  by  one  word  "  prey."  In 
fad,  mod  of  the  Hebrew  terms  have  peculiar  ideas  annexed  to 
them,  that  require  a  diverfity  in  rendering  them.* 

It  often  happens,  indeed,  that  this  diverfity  cannot  be  attained, 
becaufe  the  language  into  which  we  tranflate  has  not  fuch  a  number 

*  The  waiit  of  this  diftinftion  has  made  our  tranflators  put  in  the  mouth  of  Cain, 
•vshat  he  could  not  fay,  nor  mean — "  Behold  thou  driveft  me  this  day  from  the  face  of 
the  earth !"  Q^  Whither  then  was  he  driven  ?  Was  not  the  land  of  Nod  on  the  face 
of  the  earth  ?  The  word  is  HDHK  not  yiK  and  means  the  fpot  he  was  then  on  j  "  ranii 
TJi  yt^iv.im,  as  S.  Chryfoftomc  well  expreflesit. 

of 


T    9    1 

of  difcrlminating  terms  as  would  be  neceflary  to  exprefs  it  (not  to 
mention  that  the  etymon  of  the  original  word  is  often  dubious,  and 
the  diftindion  fometimes,  perhaps,  imaginary) ;  but  then  as  far  as 
its  terms  go,  they  are  to  be  employed,  and  appropriated,  as  nearly 
as  poffible,  to  the  ideas  meant  to  be  conveyed  by  them.  See  fome 
very  fenfible  obfervations  on  this  fubjed  in  Pilkington's  Remarks, 
Sed.    XXV, 

Diverfity  in  rendering  whole  fentences,  or  parts  of  fentences,  is 
not  lefs  common  with  our  tranflators,  than  in  rendering  fmgle  words; 
and  is  frequently  lefs  excufable.  This  is,  no  doubt,  that  "  want  of 
"  identity  of  phrafmg"  which  the  prefacers,  in  fome  fort,  apologize 
for ;  and  which  is  chiefly  obfervable  in  their  tranflation  of  Hebraifms; 
which  are  the  principal  objed  of  our  prefent  difcuflion. 

Now  in  rendering  thefe,  they  feem  to  have  been  guided  by  no 
uniform  principle,  nor  even  by  any  rules  of  grammatical  analogy : 
for  they  have  not  only  obferved  no  uniformity  in  rendering  fimilar 
fentences,  but  have  often  admitted  a  ftrange  variety  in  rendering  the 
lame  fentences.  'To  lift  up  one's  feet  for  "  to  remove''  is  certainly  not 
a  more  harlh  idiotifm  than  to  lift  up  one's  eyes  for  "  to  look  up"  Nay 
the  word  ///?,  in  ftrid  propriety,  is  more  literally  applicable  to  the 
feet  than  to  the  eyes  :  yet  our  tranflators  every  where  retain  the  laft 
Hebraifm  ;  never  the  firft.  I  am  aware  it  will  be  fald,  that  the  firfl 
feems  more  uncouth  to  our  ears  than  the  laft;  but  I  am  perfuaded  it 
was  not  more  uncouth,  when  the  laft  was  firft  adopted ;  and  that  if 

C  they 


[      lo      ] 

they  had  alfo  adopted  the  tiiH,  it  would  now  be  as  familiar  to  us  as 
the  other. "■•■  But  the  Latin  vcrfion  feems  to  have  determined  them  ; 
which  has  eievavli  ocu/cs,  but  not  elcvavit  pedes.  Yet  the  Greek  has  re- 
tained the  laft  Hebraifm  :   GenellS  xxix.    I.    Yuxt  i^atxg  lu-;<^  mg  Trolug. 

In  like  manner,  "  to  deliver  one's  felf  from  the  eyes  of  another" 
for  "  to  efcape  from  one,"  is  not  more  abhorrent  from  our  idiom 
than  "  to  hide  one's  eyes  from  another"  for  "  to  connive  at  himv"^ 
yet  in  the  former  cafe,  our  tranflators  rejected  the  Hebraifm. 
1  Sam.  XX.  6.  but  retained  it  in  the  latter.  Levit.  xx.  4. 

To  do  what  is  good  in  one's  eyes,  is  a  Hebraifm  which  our  tranf- 
lators have  generally  rendered  by,  doing  what  pleafeth  or  Uketh  one. 
Thus  Gen.  xvi.  6.  "  Behold  thy  maid  is  in  thy  hand ;  do  to  her 
"  as  it  pleafeth  thee."  And  Eflher  viii.  8.  "  Write  ye  alfo  to  the 
**  Jews,  as  it  liketh  you."  But  in  n  pHrafo  e.-sa-aiy  fimilar,  Jud. 
xvii.  6.  they  tranflate,  "  Every  one  did  that  which  was  right  in 
*<  his  own  eyes."  Again,  Gen.  xll.  37.  "  And  the  thing  was  good 
"  in  the  eyes  of  Pharoah."  But  Num.  xi.  10.  they  have  not  tranf- 
lated  "  It  was  alfo  evil  in  the  eyes  of  Mofes,"  but  "  Mofes  was  alfo 
'-*■  difpleafed." 

*  It  is  obfervable  that  the  moft  of  our  former  tranflators  retained  the  Hebraifm  : 
"  Jacob  lyfte  up  hys  fete  and  wente,  &c."  Tyndal — And  fo  Matthews,  Cranmer— 
Bifh.  Gen.  and  even  Purver.  Luther  too  has  "  her  hub  Jacob  feine  fuefie  aufP'— 
And  the  Dutch  "  hief  Jacob  fijnc  voeten  op."  Diodati,  with  his  ufual  elegance,  gave 
the  phrafe  another  term,  but  ftill  renders  the  word  ^y)  by  feet  "  Se  mejfe  in  (amino  a 
"  piedi."    The  Genevans  tranflated  as  we  do.     "  Se  mil  en  chemin," 

a.  But 


[  II  ] 

But  there  are  no  phrafes,  ia  the  rendering  of  which  they  have 
Ihewn  more  variety  than  in  thofe  of  which  the  words  p  and  ti^i^ 
make  a  part.  The  firft  of  thefe,  which  primarily  fignifies  a7o«,  and 
fecondarily  a  defcendant  of  any  kind ;  has,  in  the  oriental  dialedts, 
a  much  wider  acceptation  ;  and  is  applied  not  only  to  the  offspring 
of  the  brute  creation,  but  alfo  to  produdlions  of  every  fort ;  and 
what  is  ftill  more  catachreftlcal,  even  to  confequential  or  concomitant 
relations  :  So  that  an  arrow  is  called  the  fan  of  the  bow ;  the  morning 
Jiar^  the/on  of  the  morning ;  threfoed-out  corn^  the  fon  of  the  floor  \  and 
anointed perfonSy  the  fons  of  oil. 

Now  our  tranflators  have,  in  rendering  fuch  phrafes,  for  the 
moft  part  foftened  the  Hebraifnij  but  after  no  uniform  manner. 
So7is  of  Belial  7^^72  *^'S2.  is  furely  not  more  intelligible  to  an  Englifli 
reader  than  Som  of  oil\  and  much  lefs  fo  than  Sons  of  valour^  fons  of 
righteoufnefy  fotn  nf  iniquity ;  yet,  while  they  retain  the  firfl:  Hebraifra 
with  all  its  original  harfhnefs,  and  partly  in  its  orlghial  form  •  * 
they  mollify  the  three  laft  into  ralicmi  men,  righteous  men,  wicked 
men, 

*  Even  here  they  are  not  confiftent.  For  if  once  they  admitted  the  word  Bilial^  they 
ihould  have  retained  it  throughout ;  and  faid  a  thing  of  Bdial^  a  heart  ofBcliaL,  a  witnefs 
of  Belial^  the  foods  of  Belial:  which,  however,  they  render  an  evil  difcafe,  a  wicked 
hearty  an  ungodly  witnefs,  the  floods  of  ungodlinefs.  Nay  they  have,  once  or  twice,  tranf- 
lated  bvh"^  li^''^  ^'^^  byVa  D"W  o  %uicked  man.  At  any  rate,  if  fuch  phrafes  were  not 
good  Enghfli  in  the  Old  Teftament ;  how  came  they  to  adopt  them  in  the  New  ?  For 
there  wc  meet  with  "  The  child  of  hell,  tlie  children  of  light,  the  children  of  wrath,  the 
*'  ion  of  perdition,  &c." 

C  2  TJk 


[  I^  I 

The  hme  inconfulency  holds  with  regard  toti^'^K  in  a  umllaroon-- 
flrudlion.     If  they  could,  without  hurting  the  Englifh  idiom,  trani> 
late  a  man  of  war ^  a  man  of  underjland'mg^  a  man  of  forrows^  a  man  cf 
frfe^  a  tnan  of  wicked  devices^  the  man  of  thy  right  hand',  why  not 
alfo  a  man  of  peace,  a  man  of  truth,  a  man  of  violence^  a  man  of  ini- 
quity ? 

Not  only  in  fimilar  phrafes,  did  our  tranflators  break  the  rules  of 
imiformity ;  they  often  violated  them  in  rendering  the  fame  phrafe, 
and  that,  fometimes,  in  the  fame  chapter.  "  How  old  art  thou  ?" 
fays  Pharoah  to  Jacob,  Gen.  xlvii.  8.  inftead  of  "  How  many  arc 
"  the  days  of  thy  years  ?"  But  in  Jacob's  anfwer,  verfe  9.  "  The 
"  days  of  the  years  of  my  pilgrimage  are  &c."  In  ver.  28; 
they  again  drop  the  Hebraifm,  and  tranflate  "  fo  the  whole  age  of 
**  Jacob  ;"  for  "  all  the' days  of  the  years  of  Jacob." 

To  he  in  one's  hand^  is  a  Hebraifm  that  otten  fignifies  to  be  in  ones 
power,  and  fo  our  tranflators  rendered  it,  Job  i.  12.  "  All  that  he 
"  hath  is  in  thy  power :"  but  Gen.  xvi.  6.  they  retain  the  Hebraifm, 
*'  Behold  thy  maid  is  in  thy  hand," 

To  lift  up  ones  hand  is  tofwear ;  and  fo  we  find  it  rendered,  ExoA 
vi.  8.  "  Which  I  did  fwear  to  give."  Num.  xiv.  30.  "  Which  I 
"  fware  to  make  you  dwell  therein."  Nehem.  ix.  15.  "  Which 
"  thou  hadft  fworn  to  give  them."  But  Gen.  xiv.  22.  "  I  have 
^'  lift  up  my  hand  to  the  Lord" — and  Deuter.   xxxii.  40.     "  I  lift 

«  up 


[     13     ] 

"  up  my  hand  to  Heaven."  And  Ezek.  xx.  5.  "  In  the  day  when 
*'  I  chofe  Ifrael,  and  Ufted  up  mine  hand  unto  the  feed  of  the  houfe 
*'  of  Jacob."  Many  more  fuch  inftaaces  may  be  found  under  the 
word  '^\  * 

The  fame  variety  appears  in  the  rendering  ofTlf^rOD  ti'''K  a  man 
of  ijcar.  Thus  Exod.  xv.  3.  "  The  Lord  is  a  man  of  war:"  but 
Pfalm  xxiv.  8.  "  The  Lord  mighty  in  battle."  Again,  Num. 
xxxl.  49.  "  Thy  fen^ants  have  taken  the  fum  of  the  men  of  war:" 
but  in  the  fame  chapter,  ver.  27.  "  Them  that  took  the  war  upon 
*'  them."  The  LXX.  generally  rendered  the  words  by  ttoAs/x/jt;}?  j 
and  our  tranflators  have  ufed  warrior  and  warriors  In  the  fame  fenfe, 
on  fimilar  occafions.  i  Kings  xii.  21.  "  Fourfcore  thoufand  men 
"  which  were  warriors"  T\f^rni^XW^ ',  which  2  Chron.  xxvi.  11. 
they  render  "  fighting  men." 

*'  To  be  wife  or  right  in  one's  own  eyes,"  is  a  Hebraifm  perfedly 
"  intelligible  in  any  other  language,  and  is  in  ours  not  unfrequently 
ufed  in  common  fpeech.  Yet,  even  in  rendering  this  phrafe,  our 
tranflators  varied.  Thus  Prov.  xiii.  7.  "  Be  not  wife  in  thine  own 
"  eyes."  Prov.  xii.  15.  "  The  way  of  a  fool  is  right  in  his  own 
"  eyes."  But  Prov.  xxvi.  5.  "  Anfwer  not  a  fool  according  to  his  folly, 
"  left  he  be  wife  in  his  own  conceit."  And  xxvlii.  11.  "  The  rich 
"  man  is  wife  in  his  own  conceit." 

*  What  makes  a  deviation  from  the  Hebraifm  here  more  neceflary  is,  becaufe  "  to  lift 
«  up  one's  hand"  fignifies  alfo  to  rebels  and  fometimcs  to  chajiife, 

la 


[  H  1 

InExod.  Iv.  15.  they  tranflate  ^^B2  D'^min  nt^nDt^l,  "  Thou 
"  llialt  put  Avords  In  his  mouth."  But  Ezra  viii.  17.  they  render 
"IDT*?  D**")!"!  DTT'Sl  rT^Dli^KI,  "  I  told  them  what  they  flioukl 
"  fay."  Should  not  the  Hebraifm  have  been  retamed  in  both  places  j 
or  in  neither  ? 

In  Numb.  viii.  7.  nnt:^!  bj  h)^  n;rjl  n^D;^n  arc  rendered, 
equivalently  "  Let  them  ihave  all  their  flefh  ;"  but  Ezek.  v.  i.  the 
Hebraifm  is  retained ;  "  Let  a  razor  pafs  on  thy  head." 

In  fine,  our  tranflators  appear  to  have,  not  feldom,  changed  the 
Hebraifm,  without  neceffity,  and  when  it  is  equally  plain,  and  as 
good  Englifh  as  the  fubftituted  phrafe.     *'  Come  ye  after  me"  is  as 
intelligible  as  "  follow  me" — "  To  cut  off  the  ends  or  extremities  of  a 
"  country"  is  as  intelligible,  and  it  fhould  feem  lefs  vulgar  than  "  to 
"  cut  a  country  fhort."     Sec  -z  Kings  vi.  19,  and  x.  23.     So  Prov. 
iv.  26.     "  Ponder  the  path  of  thy  feet,  and  let  all  thy  ways  be 
«*  eftablifhed."     The  Hebraifm  of  the  laft  part  of  this  fentence,  "  and 
"  all  thy  ways  fhall  be  ordered  aright,"  which  is  the  marginal  ren- 
dering, is  no  lefs  clear  and  exprellive  than  what  has  been  adopted  in 
its  ftead.  Again,  Prov.  vi.  16.  "  Six  /hifigs  doth  the  Lord  hate;  yea, 
"  feven  are  an  abomination  to  him."     I   miftake  if  it  would  not 
have   been  better  to  retain  the  Hebraifm ;     "  Yea,  feven  are  the 
*'  abomination  of  his    foul."     Prov.    xxvi.  20.     the  Hebrew   has, 
"  Without  wood  the  fire  goeth  out,"  which  our  tranflators,  with  the 

help 


[     ^5     ] 

help  of  Italics,  paraphrafe  thus :  "  Where  no  wood  ?V,  there  the  fire 
"  goeth  out,"  which,  compared  with  the  other,  appears  languid  and 
drawling.  Pfalm  xci,  16.  "  With  long  life  will  I  fatisfy  him." 
The  Hebraifm,  "  with  length  of  days,  &c,"  feems  not  only  as  clear, 
but  more  energetic  and  poetical. 

Enough  has  been  {liid  to  fhew,  that  our  tranflators  were  not  guided 
by  any  uniform  rule  in  rendering  the  Hebraifms  of  the  Bible. — But 
are  there  then  no  rules  to  be  guided  by  ?  No  fixt  and  certain  boun- 
daries to  be  prefcribed  to  a  tranflator  ?  Or  may  he,  at  random  and 
in  an  arbitrary  manner,  either  follow  the  Hebraifm,  or  abandon  it  ?  I 
fcarcely  think,  that  this  will  be  allowed  by  any  rational  Philologift. 
I  will,  therefore,  venture  to  lay  down  fome  general  Canons,  by 
which  I  myfelf  have  been  direded ;  and  of  which  I  wifli  to  obtain 
your  Lordihip's  and  the  public's  approbation. 

I        CANON. 

All  Hebraifms  that  are  fufficiently  clear  to  exclude  ambiguity ;  and 
either  were  from  the  beginning,  or  are  become  by  long  ufage,  in- 
telligible to  every  clafs  of  readers ;  and,  at  the  fame  time,  have 
nothing  in  them  that  offends  againft  the  laws  of  grammar  and  good 
writing,  fhould  univerfally  be  retained :  but  thofe  that  are  obfcure, 
equivocal,  uncouth  and  ungrammatical  fhould  as  univerfally  be 
rejected. 

II    CANON, 


y 


[  I^  ] 

II  CANON. 

In  rendering  the  poetical  and  fentential  parts  of  Scripture,  bolder 
Hebraifms  are  allowable,  than  in  the  hiftorical  and  legiflative  parts. 

III  CANON. 

Whatever  Hebraifm  has  been  once  adopted,  or  Angllcifm  fubfli- 
tuted,  fhould,  in  the  fame  fort  of  ftile,  and  in  circumftances  exadly 
fimilar,  be  uniformly  and  univerfally  retained. 

As  to  the  particular  application  of  thefe  canons.  It  muft,  I  fear, 
be  left  to  the  judgment  and  tafle  of  the  tranflator.  For  whatever 
lights  he  may  borrow  from  the  obfervations  of  others,  ftill  it  muft 
ultimately  reft  with  himfelf,  how  far  he  is  to  be  directed  by  them  j 
or  on  what  occafions  he  is  to  prefer  them  to  his  own. 

Another  queftion,  ftarting  out  of  the  former,  Is;  Should  the 
Hebraifms,  that  are  not  admitted  intn  the  text,  be  retained,  at  leaft, 
in  the  margin  ? 

Bifliop  Newcome  is  decidedly  of  opinion  that  they  fhould ;  and 
has,  accordingly,  crowded  the  margin  of  his  Verfion  of  the  minor 
Prophets  with  more  Hebraifms  than  are  even  in  our  common 
tranflation.  His  reafon  is :  "  That  the  genius  of  the  original 
"  language  will,  by  that  means,  be  fhewn ;  and  the  reader  unfkilled 
"  in  them  will  be  beft  enabled  to  interpret  for  himfelf."  Yoiu: 
Lordihip   feems  to  be  of  a  different   opinion,  if  we  may  judge 

from 


[     17    ] 

from  your  Ifalah ;  and  I  find  that  many  learned  perfons,  whom  I 
have  occafionally  confulted  on  the  point,  agree  with  you. 

Indeed,  I  can  fee  little  advantage,  that  either  the  learned  or  un- 
learned can  derive  from  fuch  marginal  renderings.     Thofe  who  are 
Ikilled  In  the  languages  have  no  need  of  them ;  and  thofe  who  are 
unfkilled  can  only  view  them  as  fo  many  ftrange  modes  of  ex- 
preflion ;  which  muft  give  them  no  favourable  idea  of  the  oriental 
ftile.      This,  I  know  it  from   experience,  is  the  idea  which  the 
common  people  entertain  of  them.     They  look  upon  them  as  fo 
many  obftacles  on  the  way  fide,  that  retard  their  journey;   and  they 
generally  prefer  Bibles  that  have  them  not.     To  what  purpofe  then 
perplex  them   with   fo   unneceffary  an   adjuatn: ;    which,    at   every 
other  verfe,  draws  their  attention  from  a  clear   Text  to  an  obfcure 
Comment  ?    For  in  that  light  every  thing  in  the  margin  is  by  them 
confidered. 

The  fole  clafs  of  readers,  to  whom  they  can  be  of  any  fervice,  is 
that  of  Biblical  Students,  who  wifh  to  make  the  Englifh  tranflation 
a  fort  of  guide  to  the  grammatical  knowledge  of  the  originals,  v/ith- 
out  the  trouble  of  learning  Hebrew  Grammar.  But  thefe,  I  pre- 
fume,  are  few  in  number,  and  have,  befides,  if  they  underftand 
Latin,  a  much  better  dire£lor  in  Arias  Montanus. 

There  are  only  two  cafes,  in  which  I  would  admit  marginal  ren- 
derings. The  firft  is,  when  the  tranflator  doubts  v*-hether  he  have 
given  the  true  meaning  of  the  original  in  the  text.     Then  he  is  not 

D  only 


[     i8     ] 

only  lufficiently  authorized,  but  obliged,  I  think,  in  juftice,  to  give 
either  a  different  Englifh  rendering  of  equal  probability,  or  a  literal 
verfion  of  the  Hebraifm.  The  fecond  is,  when  the  meaning  or 
force  of  the  text  cannot  well  be  perceived  without  the  interpretation 
of  fome  proper  name  or  emblematical  term ;  in  which  cafe,  if  the 
Englifh  interpretation  be  admitted  into  the  text,  the  Hebrew  word 
Ihould  be  referred  to  in  the  margin ;  and  fo  vice  verfa.  Though 
perhaps  it  would  be  ftill  better  to  include  the  rejeded  term  in  a 
parenthefis,  immediately  after  the  admitted  one. 

I  come  now  to  another  queftion.  Befide  fuch  idiotifms  as  I  have 
already  mentioned,  there  is  in  every  language  a  number  of  expletive 
and  redundant  words,  which  originating  in  colloquial  dialed,  no 
where  grammatical,  too  often  retain  their  place  in  the  moft  refined 
and  cultivated  languages ;  the  firfl  writers  not  daring  to  lay  them 
afide,  and  their  example  giving  tkem  a  fanaion  among  thofe  who 
write  after  them.  How  many  fuch  are  there  not  in  Englifh,  which 
we  have  not  yet  had  the  courage  to  explode  ? 

In  tranflating  a  Greek  or  Latin  work  into  any  modern  language, 
or  a  work  of  one  modern  language  into  another,  we  never  think  it 
neceffary  to  exprefs  thofe  idiomatical  redundancies;  nay,  for  the 
honour  of  our  author,  we  avoid  exprefling  them  as  much  as  poffible. 
But  a  different  procedure  has  generally  been  obferved  with  regard  to  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures.  Not  only  to  deviate  from  their  meaning ;  but, 
likewife,  from  their  form,  conftrudion,  anomalies,  tautologies,  ellip- 

fifes, 


[     »9    ] 

fifes,  pleonafms,  enallages,  hypallages — nay,  from  the  very  blunders 
of  their  various  tranfcribers,  was  long  accounted  a  kind  of  auda- 
cious facrilege. 

Hence,  no  doubt,  it  is  that  fo  many  of  them  have  been  retained 
in  moft  modern  tranllations ;  in  dlredl  oppofition  to  grammar  and 
logic ;  and  often  to  the  great  detriment  of  the  text,  and  obfcurity 
of  the  verfion.  This  unjuft  and  ill-grounded  prejudice  is,  among 
the  learned,  no  more  a  predominant  one  :  and  the  tranflator  of  the 
Bible,  if  he  be  but  a  faithful  intei-preter,  may  now,  without  the  im- 
putation of  impiety,  follow  that  mode  of  tranflation  which  he  moft 
approves  of;  and  which  is  the  moft  likely  to  convey  to  the  reader 
the  genuine  fpirit,  not  the  bare  and  barren  letter,  of  his  originals. 

Under  the  fhelter  of  this  privilege,  may  I  here  prefume  to  point 
out  fuch  Hebrew  expletives  and  pleonafms,  as  I  think  may  be,  with 
advantage,  fupprefled  in  an  Engllfh  tranflation. 

In  the   firft  place,    the  copulative  1  which   admits,    and   has   in 

every  tranflation  received,  a  great  number  of  various  acceptations  *, 

might  frequently  with  great  propriety  be   omitted   altogether ;  and 

has  often  been  omitted  by  the  beft  interpreters,  both  ancient  and 

modern. 

D  2  I  would 

*  It  is  indeed  the  general  linlc  of  fentences ;  and  ferves  not  only  for  all  thofe  parti- 
cles which  we  call  conjunilicns  ;  but  alfo  for  many  adverbs  and  prepofitions,  and 
even  pronouns.  Noldius  gives  it  above  feventy  different  meanings  :  but  his  diftinc- 
tions  are  often  nice ;  and  I  think  they  are  all  reducible  to  the  following  thirty :  y/na', 
(!>■,  «»r,  «(j_y,  with,  fo,  alfo,  thus,  if,  although,   btcaufc,  that,  for,  but,  yet,  fiiice,  indeed, 

ivh). 


[      ^o     ] 

1  would,  alfo,  extend  tliis  licence  to  the  fame  letter  in  combination 
with  i,-)^ ;  though  here  again  I  have  the  misfortune  to  have  the 
whole  weight  of  Bifhop  Newcome's  authority  in  the  oppofite  fcale. 

who,  ivhai,  thin,  now,  afterwards,  again,  whilji,  meanwhile,  therefore,  wherefore,  namely, 
neverthelefs,  moreover.  Of  thefe  the  moft  generally  ufcd,  and  perhaps  the  only  necef- 
fary,  are  and,  again,  when,  for,  hut,  that,  if,  although,  with.  This  lafl:  is,  in  realit)-, 
no  lefs  a  copulative  than  and;  and  a  more  general  ufe  of  it  would  give  perfpicuity, 
energy  and  precifion  to  many  paffages  of  Holy  Writ,  which  from  the  conftant  ufe  of 
and  and  and,  are  amphibologou?,  languid,  indifcriminate  and  ungrammatical.  We 
have  a  remarkable  inftance  in  the  three  firft  verfes  of  Genefis.  In  thefe,  three  diftin£t 
ideas  are  prefcnted The  original  creation  of  our  material  world — its  chaotic  pri- 
mordial ftate — and  the  important  change  that  took  place  at  the  period  of  the  fix  days 
creation.  It  is,  moreover,  evident  from  the  form  and  arrangement  of  the  Hebrew 
words,  that  fuch  a  diflinftion  was  meant  by  the  writer.  For  "JC^H  being  without  a 
verb,  and  mi  being  joined  to  a  participle,  are  naturally  and  ftriftly  connefled  with 
what  immediately  goes  before  ;  but  with  what  follows  only  by  contraft.  It  is  there- 
fore impoflible  that  the  1  can  be  equally  well  rendered  by  "  and,"  through  the  whole 
of  the  three  verfes.  Let  us  fee :  "  In  the  beginning  God  created  the  Heavens  and  the 
"  earth,  and  the  earth  was  without  form  and  void,  and  darknefs  was  upon  the  face 
"  of  the  deep,  and  the  fpirit  of  God  moved  upon  the  face  nf  the  vratcis:  and  God  faid, 
"  Let  there  be  light,  and  there  was  light."  How  heavy,  how  monotonous,  how  like 
to  the  tale  of  a  peafent  is  this  narrative  !  But  to  do  juftice  to  the  author  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, who,  as  Longinus  fays,  was  certainly  no  mean  writer,  let  us  combine  the  above 
pafTage  as  fenfe  and  conftruftion  point  out ;  and  the  three  forementioned  diftind  ideas 
will  immediately  appear  confpicuous.  In  the  beginning  God  created  (or  had  created) 
the  Heavens  and  the  earth.  The  earth  was  yet  a  difmal  wafte,  with  darknefs  on 
the  face  of  the  deep ;  and  a  mighty  wind  (fee  p.  49,)  moving  upon  the  furface  of 
the  waters:  when  God  faid,  "  Let  there  be  light ;"  and  light  there  was.  Here 
there  are  only  two  common  variations  in  rendering,  and  no  need  of  an  italic  fupple- 
mcnt  to  conneft  the  fcnfe  ;  and  yet — But  I  fliall  leave  the  intelligent  reader  to  make 
the  comparifon  of  thefe  two  modes  of  tranflating ;  and  only  obferve  that  the  firft  varia- 
tion of  the  copulative  is  juftified  by  the  Greek  tranflation,  and  by  the  Vulgate  i  oi  yv 
—Terra  autem  :  and  that  the  connedlion  of  DTlvK  HIT  with  what  precedes  is 
implied  by  their  employing  the  imperfed  time  iTnfifiro—firchtia; 

Ma 


[       21       ] 

He  thinks  your  Lordflilp's  tranflation  of  Ifaiah  xxxvili.  i.  defeftive; 

becaufe  you  have  omitted  "  Now  it  came  to  pafs."  But  if  one  were 

to  afk  his  Lordihip,  whether  he  think  that  the  Prophet,  if  he  had 

written  in  Englifh,  would  have  expreffed  himfelf  in  that  manner  ? 

I  am  perfuaded  he  would  anfwer  in  the  negative.     If  fo,  it  is  then 

evidently  a  Hebrew  pleonafm,  that  fliould  not  be  rendered  in  Englifli. 

At   any   rate,    it  fliould  not  be  rendered,     "  Now  it  came  to  pafs," 

which  never  could  have  entered  into  the  head  of  an  Enelilh  tranfla- 

tor,  but  for  the  Greek  (yersTo  and  the  'Ls.lm  faSliim  cji.     If  it  were 

at  all  to  be  tranflated,    in  the  paflage   above   mentioned   and   other 

fimilar   pafTages,  why  not    "  It  was   (or  it  happened)   in  the  four- 

"  teenth  year  of  King  Hezekiah,  that  &c"." 

With  regard  to  the  word  noxS  for  the  omiflion  of  which  your 
Lordfhip  is  alfo  blamed,  in  the  fame  paflage  (Pref.  to  the  Minor  Pro- 
phets, p.  xix.)  I  think  it  may  be  fomctimcc  tranflated  with  pro- 
priety ;  and  fometimes  left  untranflated.  When  the  word  "i^*]  pre- 
cedes, I  would  for  the  mofl:  part  tranflate  it ;  but  when  it  is  pre- 
ceded by  "1t2K  I  would  not  tranflate  it ;  unlefs  that  1,t:K  could  be 
conveniently  rendered  ^o^a-,  and  not /aid*  There  is  only  one  cafe 
that,  to  me,  prefents  a  difiiculty.     It  is,  when  IDN'b  follows  a  mef- 

fage. 

*  The  fecond  13N7  was  fometimes  negledled  even  by  the  Oriental  tranflators, 
though,  in  their  dialects,  it  was  idiomatical.  Thus  Syriac,  Jofliua  i.  i.  renders  the 
Hcbr.  ItSN*?  rnn"'  ICN"'!  by  only   t<l")0  lOK  i    and   fo   in   other   places— The 

Greeks 


[  22  ] 

fage.  "  It  was  told  him,  faying — word  was  brought  to  hini,y^;«§-." 
Here  the  rules  of  Englifli  Grammar  are  manifeftly  violated ;  and 
yet  I  cannot  fee  how  they  can  be  adhered  to,  without  deviating 
from  the  ftile  and  manner  of  the  originals,  and  almoft  always  dimi- 
nifhing  their  fimplicity.  Should  we,  for  the  fake  of  Grammar, 
even  at  thefe  rifks,  adopt  the  indirect  mode  of  expreffing  the  mef- 
fage,  inftead  of  the  diredl  ?  Or  fhould  we  fay,  "  This  word,  this 
"  meifage  was  brought  to  David  ?"  Or,  in  fine,  fliould  we  retain  the 
prefent  verfion,  ungrammatical  as  it  is,  as  being  the  leaft  of  the  three 
evils  ? 

The  words  "tb.  "ip.  "h.  and  their  refpedive  plurals  are  alfo  mere 
expletives,  that  may  be  frequently  omitted  in  a  tranflation,  to  which 
they  are  not  only  not  neceffary,  but  often  give  a  vulgar  air. 
"  Build  me  an  altar — Get  thee  up — Take  to  thee  a  wife — Come 
"  curfe  me  Jacob — Aflemble  me  the  men  of  Judah — Take  thou 
"  alfo  unto  thee — Jacob  took  to  him  rods  of  green  poplar."  In 
thefe  and  all  fuch  phrafes  the  pronoun,  it  fhould  feem,  would  be 
better   omitted.     Nay,  our  tranflators   themfelves  have   fometimes 

Greeks  and  Jerom  made  the  repetition  lefs  difgufting  by  varying  their  words — Hire, 
^iyu, — locutus  g/?,  dicens.  In  which  they  have  been  generally  imitated  by  modern 
tranflators :  and  this  accords  perfectly  with  the  exceptional  diftinftion  I  have  made ; 
for  "he  fpoke,  faying ;"  or  "  he  fpoke,  and  faid"  has  no  air  of  tautology  any  more 
than  "10N7  "1^1 — It  is  remarkable  that,  although  this  phrafe  is  frequent  in  the 
Hebrew  writings,  we  never  find   12*17  ■^Q^?• 

omitted 


[     23     ] 

omitted  it,  as  Ezek.  xii.  5.  "  Dig  thou"  for  "dig  thou  thee;" 
and  verfe  7.  "  I  digged"  inflead  of  "  I  digged  me."  * 

The    perfonal    pronouns  Kin  and  ii'>n    feem   redundant  in   fuch 
phrafes  as  thefe  :    "  The  woman,  whom  thou  gaveft  to  be  with  me, 

*^Jbe  gave  me  of  the  tree And  Debora,  a  Prophetefs,  the  wife 

"  of  Lapidoth,  J/:e  judged  Ifrael   at  that   time — ^Now  Hannah,  J/je 

"  fpoke  in  her  heart But  your  little  ones,  which  ye  faid  fhould 

"  be  a  prey,  t/jem  will  I  bring  in Your  carcafles,  ihey  (hall  fall 

*'  in  this  wildernefs."  I  am  well  aware  that  this  has  been  called  an 
emphatical  mode  of  expreffion ;  and,  in  fome  inftances,  accounted  a 
particular  beauty ;  as  when  the  people  exclaim,  i  Kings  xviii.  39. 
"  The  Lord,  he  is  the  God  ;  The  Lord,  he  is  the  God."  Be  it  fo  ; 
yet,  even  here  it  has  all  the  air  of  vulgar  tautology ;  and  brings  to 
one's  mind  the  old  fong  :  "  Bell,  JJ.'e  is  my  darling,  &c."  Were  it 
at  all  deemed  neceflary  to  tranflaic  the  redundant  word  for  the  fake 
of  emphafis,  I  fliould  prefer  giving  it  another  turn,  and  fay,  "  That 
"  woman,  &c.  The  Prophetefs  Debora,  &c. — Thofe  little  ones,  &c. 
"  — Jehovah  himfelf,  &c." — Although,  in  general,  it  would,  per- 


*  We  fliould  laugh  at  a  tranflator  who  fhould  thus  literally  render :  ^/id  tibi  vis  F 
Scire  ubi  nunc  fit  tua  tibi  Daphnis  ?  or  the  French  Je  m'en  vais — battez — moi  cet 
homme-la  va-t-en,  il  s'en  eft  alle.  Yet  the  perfonal  pronouns  are  not  lefs  redundant 
in  the  above  Hebrew  phrafes,  than  in  any  of  thefe. 

4  haps. 


[     24     ] 

haps,  be  more  agreeable  to  the  fimplicity  of  the  Scrlpture-ftilc  to 
leave  the  pronoun  untranflated.  * 

Hoc  quoque,  Tirefia,  prater  narrate/,  petentl 
Refponde 

A  fimilar  redundancy  is  frequent  in  the  pronominal  fuffixes  1  and 
n  ;  Dn  and  |n  ;  efpecially  in  combination  with  the  infeparable  pre- 
pofitions  a  and  D — "  I  know  him  that  he  will  command  his  children 
"  — the  land  which  I  will  give  you  to  inherit  it — But  of  the  tree  of 
"  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  thou  flialt  not  eat  of  //. 
"  Thefe  are  the  nations,  which  the  Lord  left  to  prove  Ifrael  by  /Z»^;«."f 
In  many  inftances  our  tranflators  difregarded  fuch  expletives ;  thus 
Numb,  XXXV.  34.  inflead  of  "  Defile  not  therefore  the  land  which 
"  ye  fhall  inhabit,  which  I  dwell  in  it ;"  they  judicioufly  render 
*'  wherein  I  dwell :"  and  I  can  fee  no  good  reafon  why  they  did  not 
extend  the  fame  licence  to  all  fimilar  cafes. 

It  likewife  appears  to  me,  that  it  would  often  be  proper  to  omit 
tranflating  the  relative  "\li?N,  efpecially  when  it  cannot  be  rendered 

*  Our  tranflators  did  not  always  render  it.  Thus  Exod.  W.  14.  we  haA'e,  "  I 
*'  know  that  he  can  fpeak  well ;"  which  in  the  original  is,  "  I  know  that  he  can  fpeak 
"  well,  he,"  correfponding  exaftly  with  the  French  vulgarifm,  "  Je  vous  le  dis,  moi— 
"  il  fe  tait,  lui." 

t  The  French  have  a  fimilar  pleonafm.  La  viiloire  qu'il  tient  deja,  un  coup  de 
fabre  eft  fur  le  point  de  la  lui  ravir.  The  vidory,  which  he  already  grafps,  the  ftroke 
of  a  fabre  is  on  the  point  of  fnatching  it  from  him.  And  fome  of  our  modern  re- 
finers have  fliewn  a  ftrange  inclination  to  ape  this  ungrammatical  mode  of  exprefllon. 

"  without 


[      25      ] 

without  an  italic  fupplement.  A  ftriking  example  occurs  In  the  very 
firft  chapter  of  Genefis,  v.  7.  "  God  made  the  firmament,  and 
"  divided  the  waters  which  were  under  the  firmament,  from  the 
"  waters  which  were  above  the  firmament."  This  is  in  reality  a 
contradldion  ;  for  ,  if  the  waters  were  already  above  the  firmament, 
what  need  to  divide  them  from  thofe  that  were  below  ?  Other  trans- 
lators^ have,  with  nearly  equal  impropriety,  fupplied  the  word  are^ 
for  how  could  the  waters  above,  which  God  at  the  creation  Separated 
by  the  atmofphere  from  thofe  below,  be  the  waters  that  are  now 
feparated  by  that  fame  atmofphere  ?  But  if  we  tranflate  fimply  and 
indefinitely,  "  the  waters  above  the  firmament  from  the  waters  be- 
"  low  the  firmament ;"  all  will  be  clear  and  confiftent. 

The  word  tt?''N,  man^  Is  often  a  mere  expletive,  not  only  In 
Hebrew,  but  alfo  in  Greek  ;  *  and  as  fuch  our  tranflators  fometlmes 
confidered  it.  Exod.  ii.  11.  "  Jrie  fpicd  (a  man)  an  Egyptian 
"  fmiting  (a  man)  a  Hebrew:"  and  v.  14.  "Who  made  thee 
"  (a  man)  a  prince  and  a  judge  over  us  ?"  Judges  vl.  8.  -*'  The 
"  Lord  fent  (a  man)  a  prophet :"  xx.  4.  And  (the  man)  "  the 
"  Levite."  f  Why  did  they  not  ufe  the  fame  freedom,  Gen. 
xlil.  30.  where  they  render  ^-IN  '>:nK  ir\S'  "  The  man  who  Is  the 

*  Mxxiou!  a.tr,(.  Demoft.  ami  in  the  New  Teftament  asofs?  aJtJ.foi,  aaJ-;  Erai^ei,  &c. 

t  In  Jeremiah  xxxviii.  7.  they  give  it  another  term,  and  tranflate  D'^ID  w'''X  one 
s£  the  Eunuchs. 

E  "  Lord 


C   *6   I 

«  Lord  of  the  land,"  at  the  espence  of  introducing  two  words  that 
are  not  in  the  text*  :  and  again  v.  33.  "  The  man,  the  Lord  of 
"  the  country."  I  need  not  remark  that  nirJ<,  a  woman,  is  often  in 
the  fame  predicament.  See  2  Sam.  xv.  1 6.  i  Kings  iii.  1 6.  Jerem. 
iii.  3. 

What  I  have  faid  of  t^^-iN  is  apphcable  to  \1 :  "  The  fons  of  the 
"  prophets,"  and  "  the  prophets"  are  the  fame  thing;  as  in  Greek 
vm  A;^aiw;'  and  -n-aiHi  laTpuv  fignify  only  "  the  Greeks"  and  "  the 
**  Phyficians :"  and  here   a  queftion   might  be  made,    whether  it 
would  not  conduce  to  perfpicuity,    and  prevent  mifapprehenfion, 
every  where  to  render  ""iD,  except  when  it  denotes  the  immediate 
progeny,  by  the  gentile,  or  patronymic,  of  the  proper  name  that 
follows  ?    So  that,  inftead  of  faying  "  the  children  of  Reuben,  the 
**  children  of  Gad,  the  children  of  Moab,  Amalek,  Ammon,  &c." 
we  fhould  fay,  "  the  Reubenites,  Gadites,  Moabites,  Amalekites, 
"  Ammonites,  &c."     Here,  too,  our  tranflators  have  fet  the  ex- 
ample ;  though,  as  I  have  already  faid,  without  any  fort  of  uni- 
formity.   Joel  iii.   6.    "  The  children  of  Judah,  and  the  children  of 
"  Jerufalem,  have  ye  fold  unto  the  Grecians."     The  Hebrew  has 
"  to  the  children  of  the  Greeks."    So  Judges  xix.  16.     "  Benjamites 
(it  fhould  be  Benjaminites)  for  fons  of  Jemini."      i  Chron.  xxiii. 
27.   "  Levites"  for  "  fons  of  Levi."  2  Chron.  xxvii.  5.  "  Ammo- 
"  nitea"  for  "  children  of  Ammon."     Ezek.  xxiii.    15.    "  Babylo- 

*  According  to  their  fcrupulous  fyftcm,  "  who  is  "  fliould  have  been  in  Italics. 
4  "  nians" 


[      27      ] 

**  mans"  for  "  children  of  Babylon  ;  "  and  even  "  men"  for  "  fons 
"  of  man  or  Adam."  Pfalm  Ixxxix.  47.* 

This  licence  fhould,  I  think,  be  extended  to  proper  names,  when 
thefe  fignify  a  whole  tribe  or  people.  This  has  been  foinc times  done 
by  our  tranflators,  but  not  nearly  fo  often  as  it  fhould  feem  expedient. 
A  man  of  ordinary  comprehenfion,  on  reading  thefe  words,  "  Judah 
*'  went  with  Simeon  his  brother — Judah  took  Gaza — The  Lord  was 
"  with  Judah  ;  and  he  drove  out  the  Canaanites — The  Lord  deliver- 
*'  ed  them  into  the  hand  of  Midian — Thus  faith  the  Lord  of  Hofts  ; 
*'  I  remember  what  Amalek  did  to  Ifrael ;  how  he  laid  wait  for  him 
"  in  the  way" — might  naturally  enough  imagine  that  fo  many  dif- 
ferent individuals  were  hei^e  defigned.  Would  it  not  be  better, 
therefore,  to  tranflate  Amalekites,  Midianites,  Simeonites,  Judaites  ?" 
or,  if  in  the  two  laft  inftances  the  terms  may  feem  uncouth,  fupply 
in  Italics  the  word  tribe  ?  Nor  would  I  make  the  fame  exception  here 
in  favour  of  '!?N"IU^''  itfelf,  that  I  juft  now  made  in  favour  ofbii'\U'>  "iJD  ; 
but  I  would  render  it  "  Ifraelites"  when  I  faw  occafion  j  or  fupply 
the  word  children. f 

E  2  The 

*  I  fhould,  however,  1  know  not  well  for  what  reafon,  be  inclined  to  make  one  ex- 
•ceptisn  :  I  would  ftill  fay,  the  children  of  Abraham,  of  Ifaac,  of  Jacob,  and  above  all, 
"  the  children  of  Ifrael."  It  is  a  kind  of  national  diftincSlion  of  the  pofterityof  thofe  three 
patriarchs,  and  is  fo  often  repeated  and  fo  univerfally  underftopd,  that  no  ambijuity 
■can  eafily  arife  from  it. 

•f-  What  has  been  faid  in  this  and  the  preceding  fedion  is  to  be  underftood  chiefly 
■•f  the  profe  parts  of  the  Bible.     In  poetry,  a  different  mode  of  rendering  fliould  gene- 
rally 


[  ^8  ] 
The  word  D"'i3  or  ">J3  is,  likeways,  fometimes  pleonafllc,  though 
not  fo  frequently,  I  fufpe£t,  as  fome  Grammarians  would  have  it  to  be. 
Ifeenoreafonforfuppreflingit  in  fuch  phrafes  as  thefe :  "  Darknefs  was 
"  upon  the  face  of  the  ,deep — There  went  up  a  mift  from  the  earth 
"  and  watered  the  whole  face  of  the  ground — and  behold  the  face  of 
"  the  ground  was  dry."  We  daily  ufe  the  word  face  in  much  bolder 
and  far  lefs  analogical  metaphors,  and  iu  reality,  D'OiD  fignifies  the 
external  appearance  of  any  thing.  It  is  true,  however,  that  the  word 
cannot,  in  many  places,  be  rendered  literally  ;  or  fhould  not,  perhaps, 
be  rendered  at  all  :  and  in  this  the  tranflator  muft  be  guided  by  gram- 
matical analogy  and  idiomatical  propriety  ;  and  follow,  according  to 
the  particular  exigency,  that  method  of  rendering,  which  is  the  moft 
likely  to  give  the  full  force  of  the  original,  without  its  obfcurity.* 

The 

rally  prevail ;  even  although   an  explanatory  note  fliould  be  requlfite  to  prevent  mif. 
takes. 

*  Befide  the  pleonafms  which  our  tranflators  introduced  into  the  Englifh  Bible  from 
the  originals,  they  feem  to  have  admitted  others  that  have  little  or  no  foundation  in  the 
originals.  For  example,  in  rendering  the  fecond  perfons  of  the  imperative  mood,  they 
have  often  expreired  the  perfonal  pronoun  thou  and  ye  when  they  are  not  in  the  Hebrew. 
Thus  Num.  xvi.  19.  "  Only  rebel  not  ye  againft  the  Lord  ;  neither  fear  ye  the 
people  of  the  land."  It  may  indeed  be  faid  that  ye  is  implied  in  the  verbs  :  but  furely 
it  is  not  neceflary  to  exprefs  it ;  and  if  DflN  had  been  in  the  Text,  they  could  have 
done  no  more.  At  any  rate,  if  it  was  implied  there,  it  was  equally  implied  in  the  laft 
part  of  the  fame  verfc ;  which  is  neverthelefs  rendered  "  fear  them  not."  Of  is  plainly 
fuperfluous  and,  moreover,  a  folecifm,  in  fuch  phrafes  as  thefe  :  "  Take  an  heifer  of 
three  years  old.     A  lamb  of  one  year  old,"  &c.     Are  not,  likeways,  all  the  perfonal 

pro- 


■       [    29    1 

The  fame  rules  mufl:  dired  him  in  rendering  or  not  rendering: 
nS.  '•fl.  n\  "I"in.  inp.  UV.  -lai.  Vip.  DI''  &c.  and  how  far,  if  he 
depart  from  the  Hebraifm,  he  may  lawfully  vary  its  equivalents 
Let  us  now  proceed  to  queries  of  a  different  nature. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  fmgular  number  is,  in  Hebrew,  very  of- 
ten ufed  to  exprefs  the  whole  genus  or  fpecies  of  the  thing  fignified. 
Such  Colledlives  are  more  or  lefs  frequent  in  every  language,  but 
are  of  much  greater  extent  in  the  Afiatic,  than  in  the  European 
dialeds.  "  The  earth  brought  forth — the  herb  yielding  feed — and 
"  the  tree  yielding  fruit — And  God  made  the  beaft  of  the  earth  after 
"  his  kind — Have  dominion  over  the  fifli  of  the  fea  and  over  the  fowl 
"  of  the  air — Of  every  clean  beaft  thou  fhalt  take  to  thee  by  fevens." 
Our  tranflators  did  not  always  think  themfelves  obliged  to  follow 
fo  literal  a  mode  of  rendering.  Gen.'xxxii.  5.  "  I  have  oxen  and  afles." 
Hebrew,  "  I  have  ox  and  afs."  Lcvlt.  xi.  2,  "  Thefe  are  the  beafts 
which  ye  fhall  eat."    Hebrew,  "  This  is  the  beaft."     Num.  xxi.  7, 

pronouns  too  frequently  repeated,  when  there  is  no  real  change  in  the  perfon.  I  fliould, 
alfo,  think  that  the  word  that  is  fuperfluous  in  fuch  phrafes  as  this,  Jud.  ii.  20.  "  And 
he  faid  becaufc  that  this  people  &:c."  "l*i'{^  'A^i  and  fimilar  combinations  beins;  per- 
feftly  rendered  by  becaufe.  In  like  manner  ll^'^  and  D 71^'?  feem  fully  rendered  by 
"  for  ever,"  without  the  addition  of"  more."  Nay  a  ufelefs  pleonafm  may  fometimes 
arife  from  the  very  arrangement  of  a  fentence  :  and  I  think  there  are  no  lefs  than  five 
fuperfluous  words  in  the  following  verfe,  Levit.  xx.  2.  "  Whofoever  he  be  of  the 
«  children  of  Ifrael,  or  of  the  ftrangers  that  fojourn  in  Ifrael,  that  giveth  any  of 
"  his  feed  UNto  Moloch,  he  {hall  furely  be  put  to  death."  Read  it  without  the  words 
in  Capitals,  and  fee  if  it  be  not  as  complete,  more  fimple,  and  hfs  embarra/Ted. 
Nor  is  there  a  fingle  word  of  the  Hebrew  unexprefled  :  for  the  "ltJ?{<  before  ?f)l  is 
included  in  the  word  "  whofoever  ;"  neither  is  there  any  need  of  Italics  to  conned  the 
fentence. 

"  Pray 


[    30    i 

"  Pray  unto  the  Lord  that  he  take  away  the  ferpents  from  us." 
Hebrew,  "  the  ferpent."  Surely  they  might  have  ufed  the  fame 
freedom  in  many  other  places,  which  would  have  prevented  a  con- 
fiderable  number  of  ungrammatical  combinations,  which,  by  follow- 
ing the  other  mode,  they  could  not  eafily  avoid.  I  fhould  therefore 
hope  that  no  future  tranflator  will  be  blamed  for  rendering  all  fuch 
fingulars  in  the  plural  number,  unlefs  when  the  word  ^3  precedes 
them  ;  in  which  cafe  it  will  much  depend  on  circumftances,  whether 
he  fhall  or  fhall  not  prefer  the  fmgular.  I  need  hardly  add,  that 
the  fame  liberty  fhould  be  taken  with  plurals,  when  they  convey 
only  a  fmgular  meaning. 

Befide  this  enallage  of  numbers,  which  is  extremely  frequent, 
there  is  another  of  perfons,  the  want  of  attention  to  which  has  intro- 
duced great  confufion  into  modern  tranllations,  and  given  rife  to 
many  rafh  conjedtviral  emendations  of  the  text.  It  is,  when  in  ad- 
dreffes  to  God,  or  even  to  man,  the  third  perfon  is  elegantly  ufed  for 
the  fecond  ;  and  fhould  always  be  rendered  in  the  fecond.  A  pro- 
per inftance  occurs  in  Pfalm  civ.  The  Pfalmifl,  in  our  common 
verfion,  is  made  to  addrefs  the  Almighty  in  this  manner  :  "  O  Lord 
"  my  God,  thou  art  very  great ;  thou  art  clothed  with  honour 
*'  and  majefty.  Who  coverest  thyfelf  with  light  as  with  a  gar- 
"  ment  ;  who  stretcheth  out  the  heavens  like  a  curtain  ;  who 
*'  LAVETH  the  beams  of  his  chambers  in  the  waters ;  who  maketh 
■"  the  clouds  his  chariot  ;  who  walketii  upon  the  wings  of  the 

"  wind  J 


C     3»     ] 

**  wind  ;  who  MAKETH  His  angels  fpirlts,  and  His  minifters  a 
"  flaming  fire  ;  who  laid  the  foundations  of  the  earth  that  it  fhould 
"  not  be  removed  for  ever :  Thou  coveredst  it  &c."  Here^ 
befides  that  a  look  of  incoherency  is  given  to  the  whole  paflage,  the 
rules  of  our  Grammar  require  stretchest,  layest,  makest, 
WALKEST,  as  well  as  art,  coverest,  coveredst  ;  and  the  pro- 
noun THY  throughout,  inilead  of  his.  But  the  affix  i  after  ini'^'wr 
3Dn>  ''Di<S,!3>  Sec.  determined  our  tranflators  to  admit  a  folecifm  rather, 
than  depart  from  the  letter  of  their  original. 

It  is  to  be  remarked  that  the  Hebrew  words,  which  are  here 
tranflated  in  the  fecond  and  third  perfons,  are,  in  reality,  a£live 
participles,  and  that,  in  fuch  cafes,  it  is  a  frequent  idiotifm  of  the 
Oriental  languages  to  exprefs  the  agent  in  the  third  perfon,  though 
underftood  of  the  fecond.  The  Syrians  go  a  ftep  further  and  extend 
this  licence  to  the  third  perfon  of  the  preterite.  "  O  thou  that 
**  SAID." — "  O  thou  fon  of  man  who  judgeth  his  neighbour.'* 
— ^"  Jerufalem,  Jerufalem,  that  killeth  the  prophets  and  stoneth- 
"  thofe  who  are  fent  to  it."*  And  fo  in  the  plural, "  Tell  me,  ye,  who 
"  are  willing  that  they  (not  ye)  be  under  the  law."  Nothing,  then, 
can  be  more  juft  than  St.  Jerom's  remark,  that  thefe  and  fuch  enallages 
create    (to    thofe   who    attend    not   fufficiently   to   the   genius   of 

*  The  Greek  has  here  partly  the  fame  enallage — J  xzon^mnaa,  tsj  Tfiipr>lx(;  xcn 
XiBoSoAao-a  T«?  aB-tr«Af»em?  ^fo5  ««!'!»  (not,  s-fi>{  c-e)  Sce  alfo  Luc  i.  42.— Act.  xvii.  3. — 
Rom.  vii.  4. 


[      32      3 

the  Hebrew  language)  innumerable  difficulties  ;  but  if  they 
be  reftored,  as  they  fhould  be,  to  their  proper  cafes,  perfons 
and  tenfes,  what  appeared  obfcure  will  become  plain  and  ob- 
vious*. 

A  difficulty  here  prefents  itfelf  which  has  often  puzzled  me. 
In  the  injundions  which  God  gives  to  his  people,  the  alternate 
change  of  numbers  is  extremely  frequent,  and  often  appears  awk- 
ward in  an  Englifh  drefs.  "  \Vhen_>'^  reap  the  harveft  oi  your  land, 
"  thou  fhalt  not  wholly  reap  the  corners  of  thy  field.  7'e  fhall  not 
"  round  the  corners  oiyour  heads,  neither  fhalt  thou  mar  the  corners 
"  of  thy  beard. — If  a  ftranger  fojourn  with  thee  in  thy  land,  ye  fhall 
"  not  vex  him — When  a  man  or  a  woman  fhall  commit  any  fin  that 
"  men  commit,  and  that  perfon  be  guilty,  then  they  fhall  confefs  the 
"  fin  which  they  have  done,  and  he  fhall  recompenfe  hh  trefpafs."i" 

*  The  enallage  that  gave  rife  to  this  difcuffionls  not  peculiar  to  the  Oriental  diale<Ss. 
it  is  quite  familiar  at  this  day  to  the  Italians  and  Spaniards.  Nor  are  we  without  ex- 
amples of  it  in  our  own  tongue. 

"  Oh  thou,  who  touch'd  Ifaiah's  lips  with  fire." 

In  truth,  our  ideas  are  here  divided  between  the  perfonal  pronoun  and  the  relative. 
The  latter  is  fo  generally  conneiSled  with  the  third  perfon,  that  we  think  any  other 
conneftion  unnatural.  Thus  when  I  fay  "  Art  thou  the  perfon  who  ftole  my  watch  ?" 
I  refer  the  relative  to  perjon,  not  to  thou.  So  "  thou  who  touched"  is  equiva- 
lent to  "  thou,   the    perfon,   who  touched." 

t  The  fame  enallage  is  often  found  where  no  precept  is  enjoined,  particularly  in 
poetical  compofition,  although  many  fuch  enallages  are,  doubtlefs,  chargeable  on  the 
Copyifts,  who  frequently  miftook  and  interchanged  the  fuffixes.  Examples  may  be 
feenin  theblefling  of  Mofcs,  Deuter.  xxxiii.  and  in  Pfalm  xvi. 

Would 


l     33     ] 

Would  It,  or  fhould  it  be  confidercd  as  dealing  too  freely  with  the 
Text,  to  reduce  all  that  variety  to  one  uniform  tenor,  and  always 
tranflate  fuch  injuntStions  in  the  plural,  except  when  they  really  are 
addrefled  to  one  perfon  ?  The  mode  of  tranflating  which  Broughton 
propofed,  and  which  Caftalio  had,  before  him,  adopted,  would  for 
the  moft  part  remove  this  difficulty ;  fo  much  the  more  as  our  impera- 
tives have  no  variety  in  termination ;  yet  even  this  expedient  would 
not  always  ferve  the  purpofe,  as  long  as  tbou  and  je,  thine  and 
j'ourSy  he  and  the\\  his  and  theirs  are  fo  often  confounded.  Befides, 
the  future  feems  to  give  a  folemnity  and  force  to  the  precept,  which 
is  not  fo  apparent  in  the  fimple  imperative  ;  and  "  Thou  fhalt  not 

"  fteal Thou  flialt  not  commit  adultery Thou  Ihalt  not  covet 

*'  thy  neighbour's  houfe,  &c."  would,  I  think,  be  ill  exchanged  for 
"  Steal  not" — "  commit  not  adultery" — "  covet  not,  &c."  And, 
indeed,  though  in  all  otKer  fuch  cafes,  I  fhould  be  inclined  to  ufe  the 
plural  ;  throughout  the  Decalogue   I  would  retain  tlie  fingular. 

As  idiomatical  pleonafms  may  be  retrenched  in  a  tranflation  with- 
out the  fmallefl  injury  to  the  original  author  ;  fo  may  his  ellipfifes 
be  with  propriety  fupplied,  if  the  fupplements  be  virtually  contained 
in  the  elliptical  phrafe.  Putting  fuch  fupplement«  in  Italics,  is  a  mere 
modern  refinement,  unknown  to  the  moft  literal  ancient  tranllators. 
Even  Pagninus  himfelf  did  not  dream  of  fo  filly  a  device.  The 
father  of  it,  I  believe,  was  Arias  Montanus  ;  who  yet,  probably, 
never  meant  that  it  fhould  be  adopted  in  a  tranflation  for  common 

F  ufe. 


[     34     ] 

ufe.  His  fole  intention  feems  to  have  been  to  give  to  his  half- 
learned  readers  fome  idea  of  the  Hebrew  idiom  ;  and  that,  indeed, 
is  the  only  advantage  that  can  be  derived  from  his  labour.  It  is 
therefore  no  fmall  matter  of  furprife,  that  he  fhould,  in  this  refpe<3:, 
have  become  a  model  to  pofterior  tranflators* ;  and  continued  to  be 
fo,  until  your  Lordfhip  broke  the  enchantment. 

We  fhould  laugh  at  the  man,  who  in  rendering  thefe  words  of 
Lucian,  y  fxoi  o-;:j^oA«,  "  I  am  not  at  leifure,"  fhould,  to  fhew  his  flrit^ 
attention  and  fidelity  to  the  Original,  diflingulfh  the  Englifh  words 
In  this  manner,  "  I  aiti  not  at  leifure  :"  which,  after  all,  do  not 
entirely  exhibit  the  Greek  idiom — Or  who,  of  the  Latin  words 
**  ^id  mulla  P"  fhould  thus  variegate  the  verfion ;  "What«f^^/V 
there  for  many  ^vords  ?"  Or  who,  having  to  exprefs  in  French  the 
following  fentence  :  "  The  news  you  bring  are  too  good,  not  to 
"  wifh  they  were  true  }"  fliould  deem  it  his  duty,  as  a  faithful  inter- 
preter, to  put  in  Italics  every  word  in  his  tranflation  that  has  not  a 
correfpondent  word  in  his  original,  even  when  the  word  is  evidently 
underftood,  and  might  with  equal  propriety  be  cxpreffed  :  "  Les 
"  nouvelles  que  vous  apportez  font  trop  bonnes  pour  ne  fas  fouhaiter 
•'  queWes  fuifent  vraies." 

*  What  is  ftill  more  aftonifhing,  fome  of  thofe  who  tranflated  from  the  Vulgate, 
paid  the  fame  fcrupulous  regard  to  its  peculiar  ellipfifes  ;  although  the  author  of  the 
Vulgate  was  a  free  tranflator,  and  often  abandoned  the  idiom  of  the  Hebrew 
without  neceflity.  But  they  thought,  I  fuppofe,  that  they  could  not,  as  Catholics, 
(hew  lefe  refped  for  the  Latin  verfion,  than  Proteftants  had  done  for  the  Original. 

But 


[    35    ] 

But  is  k  not  as  ridiculous  in  a  Verfion  of  the  Bible,  to  diftinguifh 
by  Italics  thofe  neceflary  and  implied  fupplements  which  we  fo  fre- 
quently meet  with  in  modern  tranflations  :  "  God  faw  that  it  was 
"  good — This  is  now  bone  of  my  bone — Thefe  are  the  generations 
"  of  Noah — The  men  of  Sodom  were  wicked.  In  thofe  days  there 
"  was  no  King  in  Ifrael  ;  every  one  did  that  which  was  right  in  his 
"  own  eyes,  &c."  What  elfe  is  this  but  to  count  fyllables  and  play 
with  words  ?  Italics  are  not  only  often  unneceflary,  but,  fometimes, 
degrade  the  Text.  When  Achifh,  for  example  (i  Sam.  xxl.  15.),  is 
made  to  fay,  "  Shall  this  fellow  come  into  my  houfe."  The  w^ord 
fellow  is  here  worfe  than  fuperfluous.  It  prefents  to  the  reader  an 
idea  that  is  not  in  the  original  ;  and  is,  befides,  a  term  not  only  low 
and  vulgar ;  but  alfo,  if  we  attend  to  its  etymology,  improperly 
applied. 

What  has  been  faid  of  the  Pleonafm  and  EUipfis,  is  more  or  lefs 
applicable  to  the  Enallage,  Hypallage,  and  other  lubordinate  figures  of 
fpeech,  in  the  rendering  of  all  which  a  tranflator  fhould,  I  prefume, 
be  more  ftudious  of  retaining  the  genuine  fenfe  than  the  precife  idiom 
of  his  original ;  when  by  endeavouring  to  exprefs  the  latter,  he  would 
expofe  himfelf  to  the  danger  of  obfcurity,  ambiguity,  or  barbarifm. 

I  come  now,  my  Lord,  to  a  queftion  of  great  importance,  nearly 

connected  with  the  preceding  fedions  : How  far  and  in  what 

circuraftances  is  the  Hebrew  arrangement  of  words  and  fentences, 
to  be  followed  in  a  tranflation  ? 

F  2  And 


[     36     ] 

And  here,  I  think,  one  general  propofitlon  may  be  laid  down  as 
incontrovertible  ;  namely,  That  mode  of  arrangementjs  always  the 
beft  which  exprefles  the  meaning  of  the  original  in  the  moll  intelligi- 
ble and  energetic  terms  ;  and  fuch  as  the  author  himfelf  would,  moft 
probably,  have  chofen,  if  he  had  written  in  the  tranflator's  lan- 
guage. 

Luckily  for  an  Englifli  tranflator  of  the  Bible,  he  will  not  be  often 
under  any  great  neceflity  of  departing  much  from  the  arrangement 
of  the  Hebrew  ;  efpecially  in  the  poetical  parts  of  Scripture,  where 
the  two  idioms  are  fo  congenial  as  to  appear  almoft  like  twin-bro- 
thers *.  Sometimes,  however,  he  will  fee  ftrong  reafons  for  changing 
the  order  even  in  poetry,  and  ftill  more  frequently  in  profe.  This 
will  happen  either  in  the  arrangement  of  the  feveral  words  of  a  fingle 
fentence,  or  of  the  feveral  members  of  a  compound  fentence,  or  of 
feveral  different  fentences  together- 

In  the  firft  cafe  it  cannot  be  doubted,  that  it  k  not  only  allowable,, 
but  often  neceffary  to  change  the  order  of  the  Hebrew.  There  is 
hardly  a  verfe  in  the  Bible,  in  which  inftances  do  not  occur.  For^ 
what  Ainfworth,  or  other  Englifh  Jquila^  would  venture  to  fay,  "  la 
"  the  beginning  created  God  the  Heavens— ^  And  faw  God  the 

*  James's  tranflators  did  not  always  avail  themfelves  of  this  natural  advantage ; 
and  Purver  almoft  never  attended  to  it, 

**  light 


[     37    ] 

"  light  that  It  was  good The  lamp  of  God  before  it  went  out 

•*  The  labour  of  thy  hands  for  thou  fhalt  eat?* 

It  is  little  lefs  indubitable,  that  the  arrangement  of  the  feveral 
members  of  a  fentence  may  fometimes  require  to  be  changed.  Thus 
Exod.  xvii.  20.  the  order  of  the  Hebrew  is  this :  "  He  that  facri- 
"  ficeth  to  other  Gods,  fliall  be  utterly  deflroyed,  fave  to  the 
"  Lord  only:"  but  our  tranflators  judicioufly  changed  that  order, 
and  rendered,  "  He  that  facrificeth  unto  any  Godf,  fave  unto 
"  the  Lord  only,  fhall  be  utterly  deftroyed."  So  Exod.  xii.  15. 
this  fentence,  "  Whofoever  eateth  leavened  bread  from  the  firft  day 
"  until  the  feventh  day,"  is  in  the  Hebrew  fo  arranged,  that  the  laft 
comma  precedes  the  fecond,  which  in  Englilh  would  be  extremely 
uncouth  and  confufed.  In  all  frmilar  cafes  therefore  the  arrangement 
of  the  original  Ihould  be  departed  from,  and  had  our  tranflators  more 
frequently  done  fo,  thcj  would  have  left  much  fewer  obfcurities  in 
their  tranflatlon. 

The  only  real  difficulty,  then,  regards  the  third  cafe.  Is  it  lawful 
to  tranfpofe  whole   complete  fentences,    when  their  natural  order 

*  Yet  even  this  mode  of  conftruflion  our  language  admits :  and  it  was  often  fol- 
lowed by  our  tranflators.     Then   fang    Mofes  —  Then  came  Amalek — The  right 
{hou'.der  fhall  ye  give,  &c."     ^c.  would  it  not  be  better  to  reftrain  this  inverted 
pofition  of  nominative  and  verb  to  interrogatory  fentences,  and  poetical  compofi- 
tion? 

t,  They  followsd  the  prefent  faulty  text;  in  which  D"'nn}<  is  wanting. 

feems 


a4Sl>52 


[     38     ] 

fecms  to  be  inverted,  and  when  there  is  reafon  to  fufpeft  that  tliey 
have  been  fhifted  from  their  firft  place  in  the  original  ? 

That  tranfpofitions  may  have  been  made  in  the  original  texts  of 
the  Bible,  as  well  as  in  other  waitings,  will  hardly  be  denied :  nay, 
that  they  have  adually  been  fometimes  made  is  unqueftionable : 
but  I  fear,  fome  modern  interpreters  have  been  too  ready  to  find 
them  where  they  are  not,  or,  at  leaft,  where  there  are  not  fufficient 
proofs  or  probability  of  their  exifting.  I  would  therefore  be  ex- 
tremely cautious  in  admitting  them,  and  confider  them  nearly  in 
the  fame  light  with  a  various  ledion.  If  there  were  found  a  diver- 
fity  of  order  in  the  Hebrew  manufcript's,  or  in  the  ancient  verfions, 
I  fhould  think  myfelf  at  liberty  to  follow  that  order  which  Ihould  ap- 
pear to  me  the  moil  confiftent  with  the  context :  but  if  all  the  ma- 
nufcripts  and  verfions  agreed,  I  fhould  be  apt  to  look  upon  it  as  an 
original  fynchyfis  j  and  content  myfelf  with  pointing  out,  In  a  note, 
a  feemingly  more  natural  order. 

At  the  fame  time  I  confefs,  that  I  would  not  blame  a  tranflator 
for  purfuing  a  different  plan.  For,  provided  there  be  nothing  effen- 
tial  retrenched  from  the  text,  or  added  to  it,  I  fee  no  harm  that  can 
enfue  from  putting  one  fentence  before  or  after  another,  on  rational 
grounds*.    Yet,  as  this  licence,  once  affumed,  would  probably  pro- 

*  9iiO  ord'ine  quid  referatur-^  modo  conjlat  Veritas,  aut  nihili  aut  parum  inter  eft. 

SCALIGER. 

duce 


[    39    ] 

duce  too  great  a  diverfity  of  arrangement  (for  almoft  every  one 
would  arrange  in  a  different  manner),  I  would  rather  be  for  retaining 
the  prefent  order  in  all  fuch  cafes  as  admit  only  a  doubt  of  its 
being  the  right  one. 

Before  I  difmifs  this  fubjedl  of  arrangement,  I  will  juft  remark, 
that  tranflators  in  general  have  paid  too  little  attention  to  it.     An 
improper  difpofition  of  words  in  a  fentence,  is  little   lefs  ofFenfive 
to  the  eye  and  ear  than  confufion  in  the  ornaments  of  a  building, 
or  difliarmony  In  a  piece  of  mufic ;  befide  its  being  produdlive  of 
obfcurity,  ambiguity,  and  even  of  a  falfe  meaning. — To  the  example 
I  have  given  in  my  Prospectus,  from  Ezek.  permit  me  to  add  a 
few  more  from  our  laft  tranflation.     Judg.  ii.   21.  "  I  aUb  will  not 
"  henceforth  drive  out  any  from  before  them,  of  the  nations  which 
*'  Jofhua  left."    Here  the  fentence  is  embarrafled  by  afiy  being  out  of 
its  place.  Exod.  xxxv.   29.  "  All  manner  of  work  which  the  Lord 
"  had  commanded  to  be  made  by  the  hand  of  Mofes."     Here  the 
meaning  is   ambiguous;    and  a  fmall   change    in   the   arrangement 
would  have  prevented   that  ambiguity.  Gen.  xiii.    10.  "  Lot  lifted 
•'  up  his  eyes  and  beheld  all  the  plain  of  Jordan,  that  it  was  well 
**  watered  every  where,  before  the  Lord  deftroyed  Sodom  and  Go- 
"  morra,  as   the  garden  "of  the  Lord,  like  the  land  of  Egypt,  as 
"  thou  goeft  to  Zoar."    Here  we  are  prefented  with  a  wrong  mean- 
ing ;  and  the  fynchyfis  of  the  Hebrew  fhould  not  have  been  fol- 
4  lowed 


[     40     ] 

lowed  in  a  vernacular  veriion*.  The  lame  ambiguity  is  often  found 
in  the  New  Teilament,  from  the  fame  caufe.  For  example,  i  Cor. 
xvi.  II."  With  the  brethren,"  is  fo  placed  that  it  may  fignify  either 
that  St.  Paul  looked  for  Timothy  and  the  brethren ;  or  that  St.  Paul 
and  the  brethren  looked  for  Timothy:"  By  arranging  thus,  "  For 
"  I,  with  the  brethren,  look  for  him,"  the  ambiguity  is  removed. 
Ads  xxi.  5.  "  They  all  brought  us  on  our  way,  with  wives  and 
children."  Qu.  whofe  wives  and  children?  See  alfo  Ads  xxii.  29. 
Romans  iv.  16,  17,  18. 

Befide  the  general  care  with  which  a  tranflator  fliould  arrange 
his  words  and  fentences  throughout;  ought  he  not  moreover  to  aim 
at  that  diverfity  of  ftrudure  which  may  be  remarked  in  the  different 
forts  of  compofitions  in  all  languages,  and  is  ftrongly  diftinguifhable 
in  the  Hebrew  writings  ?  A  poetical  period  will  admit,  and  fome- 
times  require,  an  arrangement,  that  in  profe  would  be  highly  incon- 
gruous. Even  in  profe  there  is,  I  conceive,  a  real,  though  not  fo 
ftriking  a  difference,  in  the  difpofition  of  the  component  parts  of  an 
hiftorical  fentence,  a  precept,  a  parable,  and  an  apophthegm.  The 
laft,  in  particular,  feems  to  demand  a  certain  degree  of  artificial 
neatnefs  peculiar  to  itfelf ;  and  which  makes  it  the  boundary,  as  it 


» 


The  laft  revifers  of  the  Geneva  French  verfion  have  well  rendered  this  fentence. 
Lot  ayant  eleve  les  yieux,  vid  toute  la  plaine  du  Jourdain,  qui  etoit,  avant  que 
•"  I'Eternel  eut  detruit  Sodome  et  Gomorra,  arrofee  partout  jufq'  a  ce  que  tu  viennes 
"  en  Tfoar,  comme  un  jardin  de  TEternel,  ct  comme  le  pais  d'Egypte." 


were. 


.      [    41     ] 

were,  between  profe  and  poetry;  if  It  do  not,  Indeed,  belong  to  the 
latter. 

At  any  rate,  as  Hebrew  poetry  Is  confefTedly  arranged  In  a  very 
different  manner  from  Hebrew  profe,  it  Is  furely  the  duty  of  a 
tranflator  to  endeavour  to  Imitate  that  difference  in  his  verfion.  And 
here  it  is,  I  think,  that  modern  tranflatlons,  our  public  one  not  ex- 
cepted, are  the  moft  fufceptible  of  further  improvement.  Your 
Lordfhip  fet  the  example ;  which  has  been  fuccefsfully  followed  by 
Mr.  Blayney  and  Bifliop  Newcome ;  and  after  which  I  alfo  have  at- 
tempted to  form  my  Imperfedt  copy. 

But  fhould  a  verfion  of  the  poetical  parts  of  fcripture  be  divided 
into  lines  or  hemiftichs,  correfponding  with  what  is  called  Hebrew 
metre?  This  method,  firfl  pradifed  by  the  Germans*,  has  been 
adopted  by  the  writers  of  moft  other  nations ;  and  more  efpecially 
by  thofe  of  our  own.  Bifhop  Newcome  has  even  made  it  one  of 
his  fifteen  rules  for  a  good  tranflation. 

Notwithftanding  all  this,  I  cannot  help  ferioully  doubting  of  its 
propriety.  I  can  fee  no  force  or  beauty  it  adds  to  the  text,  nor  pro- 
fit nor  pleafm'e  it  can  bring  to  the  reader.     On  the  contrary,  I 

*  True  it  is,  that  we  meet  with  a  fort  of  ftichical  divifion,  not  only  of  the  poetical, 
but  likeways  of  the  fentential  books  of  fcripture,  in  the  Alexandrian  and  other 
Greek  manufcripts ;  and  we  learn  from  Hefychius  that  this  was  an  early  invention : 
but  I  queftion  if  any  of  our  modern  metrical  tranflators  would  take  it  for  their 
model. 

G  think. 


C     42     ] 
think    It  confiderably  disjoints  and  disfigures  the  one,  and  often  per- 
plexes and  puzzles  the  other.     Permit  me  to  lay  before  your  Lord- 
fhip  a   fpecimen  from   your  own  Ifaiahj   the   firft   that  prefent* 
itfelf. 

And  it  fhall  be,  when  Moab  fhall  fee, 

That  he  hath  v^earied  himfelf  out  on  the  high  place. 

That  he  fhall  enter  into  his  fanCtuary 

To  intercede :  but  he  fliall  not  prevail. 

Ifaiah  xvi.  12. 

Or  the  following  from  Bifhop  Newcome's  Zechariah : 
In  that  day  Jehovah  will  defend 
The  inhabitants  of  Jerufalem  j 
And  he  that  is  feeble  among  them  fhall  be 
In  that  day,  as  David. 

Does  It  really  appear  to  your  Lordfhip,  that  in  either  of  thefe  In- 
ftances  the  text  looks  to  advantage ;  or  that  the  reader  will  be  better 
pleafed  to  fee  it  arrayed  in  this  whimfical  manner,  than  in  the  fober 
garb  of  meafured  profe  ?  I  greatly  fear  he  will  not. 

Indeed  this  mode  of  dividing  a  tranflation  of  the  Hebrew  poetry, 
feems  very  fimilar  to  that  which  was  followed  in  the  old  literal 
Latin  verfions  of  Homer;  which  not  only  give  us  no  adequate 
idea  of  the  beauties  of  the  great  original  j  but  create  an  eternal  dif- 
guft  to  the  reader,  by  difplaying  before  his  eyes  all  the  external 
4  appearance 


[    43    ] 

appearance  of  verfe,  without  any  of  its  properties.  Yet  thofe  Latin 
lines  have  one  advantage  over  your  Englifh  ones :  we  are  fure  they 
correfpond  exacSlly  with  fo  many  Greek  verfes ;  whereas  no  one 
will,  I  prefume,  aflert  the  fame  of  any  ftichical  verfion  made  from 
the  Hebrew. 

You,  my  Lord,  of  all  men  know  beft,  how  little  we  are  ac- 
quainted with  the  meafure  and  raechanifm  of  Hebrew  verfe ;  and 
how  capricious,  for  the  moft  part,  are  the  divifions  that'  have  been 
made  of  them,  even  by  the  moft  learned  Hebraifts.  What  one 
would  divide  into  long  lines,  another  would  divide  into  fhort ;  and 
what  by  this  one  would  be  combined  into  ftanzas,  would  by  that 
one  be  arranged  in  feparate  hemiftichs.  So  that  in  reality,  to  give 
a  verfion  divided  into  lines  of  any  fort,  would  be  to  give  us  no 
more  than  the  arbitrary  notions  of  the  divider ;  and  could  only  ferve 
to  imprefs  a  falfe,  or  at  leaft  an  uncenaiu  idea  on  the  mind  of  the 
reader;  without  contributing  either  to  his  inftrudtion  or  edification*. 

For 

*  Such  divifions  are  not  only  often  arbitrary,  but  fometlmes  lead  to  delufion.  I  (hall 
give  an  inftance  from  Mr.  Bbyney's  Jeremiah,  Lam.  ii.  17. 

"  Jehovah  hath  accompllflied  that  which  he  had  decreed, 

he  hath  fulfilled  his  word; 
*•  "What  he  conftituted  in  the  days  of  old,  he  hatli  de- 

ftroyed  and  not  fpared." 

To  this  conftruAion  he  was  *'  determined,"  he  fays,  «  by  the  metre."  I  fliould  be 
glad  to  know  by  what  rules  of  metre.  Surely  not  by  the  parallelifm,  which  is  mani- 
feftly  deftroyed  by  this  divifion         But  let  any  one  read  the  pafiage,  without  imagi- 

G  2  nary 


[     44     ] 

For  what  inftrudion  or  edification  can  the  mere  Englifh  reader 
receive  from  fuch  irregular  and  ill-conne£ted  lines  as  thefe,  prefented 
to  him  as  an  exemplification  of  Hebrew  verfe  ? 

In  the  houfe  of  Ifrael  I  have  feen  a  horrible  thing : 

There  Ephraim  committeth  fornication ; 

Ifrael  is  polluted. 

Moreover,  O  Judah,  an  harveft  is  appointed  of  thee 

Among  thofe  who  lead  away  the  captivity  of  my  people. 

Zech.  viii.  21. 
Or  thefe: 

And  the  inhabitants  of  one  city  fhall  go 

Into  another,  faying : 

Let  us  furely  go  to  entreat  the  face  of  Jehovah, 

And  to  feek  Jehovah  God  of  Holls  ■ 

I  will  go  alfo. 

nary  laws  of  metre  in  his  head ;  and  I  am  confident,  he  will  naturally  divide  the  words 
with  all  the  ancient  tranflators,  in  the  following  manner : 

Jehovah  hath  done— what  he  had  devifed ; 

Hath  accompliflied  the  purpofe — v/hich  he  decreed  of  old  j 

Hath  deftroyeJ — and  hath  not  fpared— — 

Not  to  mention  that  Mr.  Blayney's  laft  line  prefents  an  ambiguity,  which  a  common 
reader  might  eafily  conceive  to  be  a  flat  contradidion,  "  He  hath  deftroyed  and  not 
"  fpared,  what  he  had  conftituted  in  the  days  of  old."  What  ?  had  he  deftroyed  his  own 
decrees  ?  It  is  certain  that  is  not  Mr.  Blayney's  meaning  ;  but  his  meaning  is  not  fo 
obvious  as  it  fliould  be ;  and  even  if  his  conftrudion  were  allowed  to  be  right,  per- 
fyicuity  required  that  "  What  he  conftituted  in  the  days  of  old,"  fhould  be  included 
in  a  paienthefis ;  or  the  word  what  changed  into  as. 

Were 


[    45     ] 

Were  the  text  for  public  fervuce  to  be  thus  divided,  the  befl 
readers  would,  I  believe,  make  but  an  awkward  appearance  in  de- 
livering the  moft  fublime  oracles  of  religion.  The  eye  and  the  ear 
would  be  at  continual  variance ;  the  tones  and  cadences  would  be 
perpetually  confounded,  and  grating  difharmony  attend  the  pronun- 
ciation of  almoft  every  period. 

On  the  whole,  then,  may  I  not  appeal  to  your  Lordfhip's  judg- 
ment, even  from  your  own  pradice ;  that  in  giving  a  verfion  for 
general  reading,  fuch  a  divifion  of  thofe  parts  which  are  fuppofed 
to  be  poetry,  would  be  attended  with  manifeft  inconvenience ;  and 
with  no  vifible  advantage ;  and  that,  therefore,  a  plain  profe-like 
verfion,  which  flaould  preferve  as  much  as  poiTible  of  what  your 
Lordfhip  has  fo  ably  proved  to  conftitute  the  effence  of  Hebrew 
poetry,  would  be  greatly  preferable. 

The  Public  will,  perhaps,  here,  tax  me  with  prefumption  for 
ofTering  to  differ  from  lb  many  learned  men.  But  I  trull  I  have 
done  it  with  all  due  deference  and  modefty.  I  have  candidly  pro- 
pofed  my  own  doubts ;  I  wifli  to  have  them  canvafled ;  am  ready 
to  hear  what  may  be  faid  on  the  other  fide  of  the  queftion,  and  dif- 
pofed  to  give  up  my  opinion  to  the  general  voice. 

Although  a  proper  arrangement  of  words  and  fentences  will,  cer- 
tainly, go  a  great  way  towards  removing  a  number  of  ambiguities, 
it  will  not  always  be  found  fufficient  to  give  to  a  tranflation  of  the 

Bible, 


[     46     1 

Bible,  that  degree  of  perfpicuky,  which  a  book  Intended  for  gene- 
ral inftrudlion  feems  to  require  :  and,  therefore,  every  other  mean 
fhould  be  employed,  that  can  ferve  for  that  purpofe,  without  hurt- 
ing the  integrity  of  the  text,  or  altering  its  genuine  meaning.  Among 
thefe  means  I  would  propofe  the  following  licences,  all  which  have 
already  been  taken  by  fome  one  or  other  tranflator  j  and  the  greateft 
part  of  them  by  thofe  even  who  profefs  to  give  the  moll  literal 
verfions. 

Among  the  caufes  of  ambiguity  in  the  Hebrew  text,  one  is,  the 

too  frequent  ufe  of  the  verb,  without  its   proper  nominative  ex- 

prefled.     Thus  Num.  xxiii.  4.    "  And  God  met  Balaam ;  and  he 

*'  faid  to  him,  I  have  prepared  feven  altars,  &c."    The  meaning, 

which  the  context  only  leads  us  to,  would  be  more  obvious,  if  the  ^ 

before  "10N"»  were  rendered  "  who,"  as  was  often  done  by  the  author 

of  the  Vulgate,  and  not  unfrequently  by  fome  of  the  mofl  fcrupu- 

lous  modern  tranflators.     Our  own,  fometimes,  though  rarely,  ufed 

this  licence.    Thus  Judges  ill,  19.  "  But  he  himfelf  (Ehud)  turned 

*'  again  from  the  quarries  that  were  by  Gilgal,  and  faid,  I  have  a 

fecret  errand  to  thee,  O  King;  who  faid  (lOK'''))  keep  filence." 

And  Jerem.  xxxvl.  32.    "  Then   Jeremiah  took  another  roll  and 

gave   it   to  Baruch   the   Scribe,   the   fon   of  Neriab,    WHO  wrote 

(l3r\D^"l)  therein,  &c."     See  alfo   Judg.    lii.  31.    Prov.    xi.    22.— 

Why  not  extend  it  to  all  fimilar  cafes  ?  It  is  indeed  hardly  conceiv- 

xible  how  many  obfcurities  and  ambiguities  are  made  to  difappear  by 

this  fmgle  licence. 

Another 


«c 


[     47    ] 

Another  mean  has  been  employed  to  remove  this  fpecies  of 
ambiguity ;  efpecially  when  the  verb  repeated  is  lOK-  When  the 
fecond  or  third  naN''1  has  a  different  (though  not  expreffed)  nomi- 
native from  the  preceding  one,  St.  Jerom  very  often,  our  firfl:  tranf- 
lators  frequently,  and  our  laft  not  feldom  render  it  "  he  anfvrered  ;'* 
which  not  only  excludes  all  doubtfulnefs  of  meaning,  but  breaks 
that  colloquial  monotony,  which  arifes  from  the  conftant  return  of 
«.  he  faid,"  and    "  he  faid"  again*. 

Yet  neither  of  thefe  expedients  will  always  take  away  the  ambi- 
guity. Thus  Num.  xxiii.  7.  "  And  he  took  up  his  parable."  Who 
took  up  his  parable  ?  Not  the  perfon  laft  mentioned  in  the  text,  for 
that  was  the  King  of  Moab  j  but  Balaam,  mentioned  in  the  pre- 
ceding verfe.  Would  it  not  be  better  then  to  infert  Balaam  in  Ita- 
talics  before  "  took  up  his  parable ;"  fo  much  the  rather,  as  almoft 
all  tranflators,  from  the  Seventy  downwards,  have,  in  other  places 
not  more  ambiguous  than  this,  taken  the  like  freedom. 

There  is  yet  another  method,  which,  If  difcriminately  ufed, 
might  ferve  to  give  a  greater  degree  of  clearnefs  to  the  text,  and 
at  the  fame  time  prevent  a  tedious  repetition  of  the  copulative. 
It  is  to  change  the  firft  of  two  or  more  confecutive  preterites 
into  the  participle  of  the  fame  verb.     So,  often,  the  Greek  tranf- 

*  Sometimes  the  Vulgate,  for  the  fake  of  variety,  joins  this  expedient  widi  the 
former.  Et  ecu  Angelus  Damini  de  uek  clamavit  .Ikens :  Abraham !  Jbreham  /  ^i 
refpondit  {"1J2N"'1)  adfttni.    Gen.  xxiii.  11, 

lators. 


[    48     ] 

latorSi  ^Kct^o'Jdot.  Tou  xapTov  avl'dj  e(pay€> — Tfoa-jcaXifTOLfJiivoi  S'e  Itraax 
Tov  IccxuSf  iirsv.  i^ctpaa-  lccy.uS  ths  TroSccij  £7ro/)£uG«.  And  flill  more 
frequently  the  Vulgate :  Egrejfufque  Cain  a  facie  Domini^  habitavit, 
^c. — Bibenfque  vinum,  imbriaius  eji. — Ificedentes  retrorfum^  opeiucrunt 
'verenda  patris  Jui. — Reverfus  invenit  Jicintem  Balac^  &c. 

Although  our  laft  tranflators  feldom  adopted  this  method,  they 
very  often  took  another  equivalent  to  it.  Of  two  copulatives  they 
fupprefled  the  one,  and  rendered  the  other  by  when ;  putting  the 
fubfequent  verb  in  the  pretei-pluperfeft  tenfe.  Inftances  may  be  feen 
in  almoft  every  chapter.  The  Arabic  and  other  ancient  verCons  had 
given  them  a  precedent. 

As  the  omiflion  of  the  nominative  before  its  verb  often  beget* 
ambiguity,  fo  the  too  frequent  repetition  of  it  produces  a  difagree- 
able  tautology.  In  fuch  cafes  the  refpedive  pronoun,  it  fhould  feem, 
might  be  ufed  inftead  of  it,  when  there  is  no  danger  of  miftake. 
For  this  too  we  have  the  fandion  of  the  ancient  verfions,  particu- 
larly the  Vulgate ;  and  even  our  firft  Engliih  tranflators :  but  the 
maforetic  fuperftition  of  pofterior  times  made  our  laft  revifors  afraid 
to  follow  their  example. 

The  Hebrews  have  a  peculiar  mode  of  expreffing  themfelves  in  a 
negative  manner,  which  is  equivalent  to  a  very  ftrong  affirmation, 
but  of  an  oppofite  nature.  Thus,  "  not  to  heal  one"  is  "  to  inflid 
"  fores  on  one." — And  "  not  to  find  a  thing"  is  "  to  lofe  it." — In 

aU 


[    49     1 

all  fuch  phrafes,  I  am  of  opinion  that  the  meaning,  not  the  words, 
fliould  be  attended  to ;  and  the  phrafe  rendered  equivalently.  Take 
an  example  from  Hofea  xii.  8.  "  All  his  labour  fhall  not  be  found 
"  to  him"  (which  is  Bifhop  Newcome's  tranflation  of  a  correcSled 
text)  is,  doubtlefs,  equivalent  to  "  All  his  labours  fhall  be  loft." 
Would  it  not  therefore  be  better  fo  to  tranflate,  than  be  under  the 
neceflity  of  making  out  the  fenfe  by  the  aid  of  a  word  in  Italics ; 
which,  after  all,  prefents  an  ambiguous  meaning  ?  "  All  his  labours 
"  fhall  not  be  found  profitable  to  him."  Some  of  them,  then,  may 
be  found  profitable. 

There  is  yet  another  negative  mode  of  exprefTmg  an  affirmation, 
more  common  ftill  than  the  former,  introduced  by  the  interrogative 
particle  nSh  or  NiSt  *  "  Are  not  they  beyond  the  Jordan  ?'* 
**  Have  not  I  commanded  thee  V  "  Is  not  the  arrow  beyond  thee  ?" 
"  Are  not  thefe  things  written  in  the  books  of  the  Chronicles  of 
*'  the  Kings  of  Judah  ?"  In  fuch  phrafes,  I  prefume,  the  affirmative 
may  be  ufed  at  the  difcretion  of  the  tranflator ;  and  will  often  be 
preferable  to  the  negative. 

The  remaining  part  of  my  queries  regards,  either  certain  Hebrew 
words,  which,  though  their  meaning  be  fufficiently  known,  feem 
to  have  been  improperly  rendered  in  Engliflaj  or  Englifli  words, 
which,  though  they  were,  perhaps,  originally,  as  proper  terms  as 

*  Negativa  adilita  Interrogatloni  adfirmandi  vim  habet ;  idem  eji  quod  emnittv.   Tympius, 
Notae  in  NolJiiim. 

H  the 


[   so   3 

the  language  afforded,  are  not  quite  fo  confonaat  with  our  prefent 
ideas,  or  agreeable  to  the  rules  of  our  prefent  improved  Grammar— 
Or,  in  fine,  fuch  expreffions  as  may  feem  profane  or  indelicate,  if 
literally  underftood. 

At  the  head  of  the  firft  clafs  I  fhall  place  StbK,  which  our  tranflators 
render  "  a  Duke."  As  this  word  is,  among  the  people,  under- 
ftood to  denote  only  a  certain  order  of  nobility;  would  not  the 
meaning  of  the  Hebrew  be  better  conveyed  by  the  generical  term 
Chief  or  Prifice  f 

The  word  tJ^53,  which  in  its  primary  fignification  denotes  the 
vital  principle,  whatever  it  be,  that  makes  matter  capable  of  vege- 
tation, increafe,  fenfation,  &c.  is,  in  the  Bible,  chiefly  appropri- 
ated to  animal  life ;  and  more  particularly  to  that  of  the  human 
fpecies.  Our  tranflators  commonly  rendered  it  foul ',  and,  in  many 
places,  that  may  be  deemed  no  improper  rendering,  efpecially  in 
poetry ;  but,  in  general,  I  think,  it  fhould  be  tranflated  perfon ;  and 
with  the  pronominal  fuffixes,  often  left  untranflated.  This,  I  am 
perfuaded,  would  prevent  many  mifconceptions  of  the  true  meaning 
of  the  text,  as  well  as  a  number  of  falfe  confequences  deducible  from 
fuch  mifconceptions.  We  cannot  eafily  change  the  popular  ideas 
that  ufage  hath  affixed  to  the  terms  of  our  own  language;  but  we 
may  frequently  accommodate  the  terms  of  another  language  to 
thofe  ideas.     A   philofophical  diale<^   never  exifl;ed,  and  probably 

never  will  exift.  4 

As 


i  51  ] 

As  Vii2  is  the  vital  principle  itfelf,  which  in  animals,  according 
to  the  Hebrew  phyfiology,  refides  in  the  blood ;  fo  mi,  the  natu- 
ral meaning  of  which  is  air  or  w/W,  is  tralatitioufly  ufed  for  animal 
refpiration,  or  that  portion  of  air  which  is  neceflary  to  keep  the 
vital  principle  in  motion,  and  which  the  Scripture  calls  emphatically 
"  the  breath  of  life,"  and  thence  it  denotes  what  we  call  the  whole 
fpiritual  part  of  man,  or  the  human  foul.  By  a  ftill  ftronger 
figure  it  is  made  to  fignify  that  fupernatural  influence  by  which 
the  Deity  Is  fuppofed  to  operate  on  his  creatures,  not  improperly 
called  divine  infpiration,  or  divine  impulfe.  In  this  fenfe  it  is  often 
perfonified,  and  called  a  Spirit  either  good  or  bad.  Thus  i  Sam. 
xvi.  13,  14.  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  came  upon  David  from  that 
"  day  forward,  but  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  departed  from  Saul,  and 
"an  evil  Spirit  from  the  Lord  troubled  him."  This  is,  perhaps, 
the  boldeft  metaphoi  ir,  th^  Oriental  languages ;  and  has  given  oc- 
cafion  to  many  abfurd  and  ridiculous  naa^.,c  both  among  Jews  and 
Chriftians.  It  is,  I  confefs,  a  very  hard  matter  for  a  tranflator  to  find 
terms  adequate  to  all  the  various  literal  and  figurative  meanings  of 
the  word :  but  it  fhould  be  his  ftudy  to  feek  them,  and  to  make  the 
beft  difcrimination  poflible  :  fo  as  not  to  prefent  his  reader  with  an  idea 
that  is  not  contained  in  the  original.  If  he  cannot  always  accom- 
plifli  this  in  the  text,  a  fhort  explanatory  note  fhould  be  added  for 
that  purpofe. 

Our  tranflators  have  often  made  a  proper  diftindion  in  the  render- 
ing of  this  word ;  but  fometimes  alfo  they  feem  to  have  been  led  by 

H  2  theological 


[     52     J 

theological  fyftem  to  tranflate  it  Spirit,  when  fonie  other  term  would 
have  been  more  fuitable.  Your  Lordfhip  has  moft  properly  cor- 
reded  Ifalah  xiv.  7.  But  are  there  not  many  other  fimilar  paflages  that 
ftand  equally  in  need  of  corredion  ?  One  in  particular  prefents  itfelf 
at  the  very  threfhold  of  the  fanduar}%  that  has  been  long  a  ftumbling- 
block  to  thofe  that  entered.  Gen.  i.  2.  D^on  ^3S  'tJ?  nfiHlD  D\1'7k  r\r\\ 
•'  The  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the  face  of  the  waters."  Although 
this  tranflation  greatly  diminifties  the  force  and  beauty  of  the  narra- 
tive, is  incompatible  with  the  arrangement  of  the  original  context, 
and  was  rightly  underftood  and  rendered  by  thofe  of  the  ancient  in- 
terpreters, who  were  the  moft  likely  to  perceive  the  general  meaning 
of  the  Hebraifm ;  yet  as  the  Seventy  had  literally  tranflated  it,  and 
as  it  feemed  favourable  to  one  of  the  capital  tenets  of  the  Chriftian 
Church,,  it  was  eagerly  adopted  by  almoft  all  Chriftian  Expofit^rs, 
and  generally  applied  to  the  Holy  GT-oA  To  make  the  text  tally 
better  with  this  appUo^t^ou,  the  true  fenfe  of  the  word  /l5mD  was 
alfo  perverted.  It  was  remarked,  it  feems,  by  fome  Syrian*,  that 
Sni  in  that  dialed  might  fignify  to  brood.  This  acceptation,  which 
was  itfelf  but  a  figurative  meaning  at  moft,  was  ftill  farther  im- 
proved into  another  figurative  meaning;  and  thus,  what  was  at  firft 
only  "  a  great  wind  agitating  the  waters,"  became  in  time  the  third 
perfon  of  the  Trinity,  hatching  chaotic  matter  into  life,  as  a  bird  does 

*  We   learn  this   from   St.  Bafil  ;  and  fome  have  fuppofed  that  Syrian  to  be  St. 
Ephrem.    Ephrem,  however,  teaches  quite  the  contrary. 

her-' 


[     53    ] 

her  eggs.  Milton  accordingly  places  him  in  that  attitude,  and 
makes  him  with  mighty  wings  outjpread,  Jit  brooding  on  the  vajl  abyfs. 
This  may  be  Poetry,  but  it  is  neither  Scripture  nor  Philofophy. 
Another  inftance  I  ihall  give  from  die  Pflilms.  Pf.  civ.  4.  is  thus 
rendered  by  our  laft  tranflators  :  "  Who  maketh  his  angels  fpirits, 
"  and  his  minifters  a  flaming  fire."  That  a  fervile  tranflator  from 
the  Vulgate  fhould  be  guilty  of  fb  egregious  a  miftake,  is  not,  per- 
haps, to  be  wondered  at.  He  had  before  him  an  ambiguous  text ; 
and  might  think  it  incumbent  on  him  to  be  as  obfcure  and  unin- 
telligible as  his  original ;  but  that  one  who  tranflates  immediately 
from  the  Hebrew,  and  is  but  moderately  acquainted  with  its  genius, 
fliould  fo  miferably  degrade  this  fublime  pafTage,  is  furprifmg  indeed. 
*'  Who  maketh  the  winds  his  m.eflengers ;  and  his  minifters,  the 
flafliy  lightning."  A  bold  and  fublune  idea,  and  worthy  an  Oriental 
bard* 

Although  1332^D  is,  in  many  places,  properly  rendered  judgment, 
there  are  other  places  where,  on  account  of  the  various  acceptations 
of  the  Englifh  term,  that  rendering  feems  inadmlffible.  For  exam.- 
pie.  Job  xxvii.  2.  ''taatyD  n>Dn  ha  is  tranflated  "  God  hath  taken 
"  away  my  judgment ;"  a  meaning  very  different  from  that  of  the 
original,  which  evidently  fignifies  "  God  hath  put  oif  my  caufe ; 
"  hath  declined  bringing  me  to  trial."     Our  tranflators  might  have, 

*  Bifhop  Hare  has  well  rendered  this  verfe  in  Latin,  faciens  Angelas  fuos^  ventos; 
Mimjlros  fuos^  ignem  flammantem  :  but  Green,  \vho  took  Bifliop  Hare  for  Iiis  model, 
has  ill-tranllated  into  Englifh  the  firft  line.    "  Who  maketh  his  angels  winds." 

in 


[    54    ] 

in  fome  fort,  removed  the  ambiguity,  by  rendering  "'Dfiil'rj  "  my 
"  right,"  as  they  did  in  the  fixth  verfe  of  the  lafl-quoied  chapter  j 
where  "  I  he  againft  my  judgment"  would  not  prefent  a  more 
incongruous  meaning,  than,  in  the  former  paffage,  "  God  haih 
*'  taken  away  my  judgment." 

It  cannot  be  too  often  repeated,  that  perfpicuity  is  the  chief 
quaUty  of  a  good  tranflation  ;  to  attain  which,  it  wHl  always  be 
lawful  for  a  tranflator  to  paraphrafe  what  cannot  be  literally  ren- 
dered without  obfcurity.  From  this  principle  your  Lordfhip  has 
clearly  and  elegantly  tranflated  Ifaiah  xl.  27.  "  And  my  caufe 
*'  paffeth  unregarded  by  my  God,"  which  in  our  vulgar  verfion 
is  perplexed  and  ambiguous :  "  My  judgment  is  pafled  over  from 
"  my  God." 

I  alfo  doubt  if  the  words  \Dti  and  nit:K  be  always  properly  ren- 
dered y^//-^«/,  true;  falthfulnefs,  truth  \  and  I  fhould  be  apt  to  think 
that  veracious  and  veracity  might  fometimes  be  fitly  employed  to  ex- 
prefs  their  meaning. 

Is  there  any  word  in  our  language,  or  could  any  word  be  ana- 
logically introduced  into  it,  that  would,  in  any  degree,  exprefs 
the  relation  between  nnStt^D  and  TW — or  between  03{y  a  tribe  and 
K3U?  a  fceptre?  I  fear  not. 

The  God  of  the  Ifraelites  is  particularly  diftinguifhed  by  the 
name  nin"'  j  of  wluch  neither  the  precife  meaning  nor  the  genuine 

pronun- 


[    55     ] 

pronunciation  is  well  known.  "Jehovah  Is  a  barbarous  term,  that 
was  never  heard  of  before  the  fixteenth  century* ;  neither  Pag- 
ninus,  nor  Munfter,  nor  even  Montanus,  ufed  it  in  their  verfions: 
but  Junius  and  Caftalio  having  once  given  it  a  fandtion,  it  came 
gradually  into  general  ufage  among  Latin  tranflators  and  commen- 
tators;  and  has  of  late  made  its  way  into  vernacular  verfions  "f. 
Bate,  your  Lordfhip,  Green,  Blayney,  and  Bifhop  Newcome,  have 
all  adopted  it ;  and  the  laft-mentioned  writer  thinks  it  fliould  always 
be  ufed. 

I  have,  notwithftanding,    fome   doubt  about   it;    which   I   beg 
leave  to  propofe.     As  the  word  Lord  has  been  fo  long  employed 
among  Chriftians,  to  denote  the  Supreme  Being,  and  is  the  only 
one  in   the   New   Teftament  by  which  he  is  known,  I  fhould  be 
ftrongly  inclined  to  retain  it  in  the  Old ;  fo  much  the  more,  be- 
caufe  the  ancient  Greek,  Syriac,  Latin  and  Arabic  interpreters  re- 
fpedively  rendered  mrT*  by  a  fimilar  term  Kupjos,  N^"<0,  Dominus,  i^. 
Befides,  we  fometimes  meet  with  niH"'  in  conflrudlion  with  ^^^t^^: 
which  we  could  hardly  render  "   Jehovah  of  Hofts ;"  and   Bilhop 
Newcome  himfelf  allows  that,   in  fuch  cafes,  we  muft  fupply  D\~l'7N 
and  fay  "  Jehovah  God  of  Hofts." 

*  Drufms  could  find  no  higher  authority  for  it  than  that  of  Galatinus. 

t  I  know  not,  however,  if  it  have  yet  been  admitted  into  any  vernacular  verfions 
except  that  of  Michaelis  in  German.  Luther's,  the  Dutch,  Dani(h,  Old  Swedifh, 
Italian,  and  Spanifh  have  Lord.  The  French  Genevan  has  the  Eurnal-,  which  has 
been  adopted  by  the  Paris  Capuchins  in  their  late  tranilations. 

There 


[  5<5  1 
There  Is  only  one  obje£tlon  that  now  occurs.  The  word  piK  is 
alfo  tranflated  Lord,  and  with  the  fufEx  my  Lord,  although  it  is 
only  a  term  of  refpe£l  applied  to  human  beings  ;  and  moft  probably 
never  applied  to  the  Deity  without  the  repetition  of  D''n{<n,  "  Lord 
*'  of  Lords*."  It  fhould  feem,  therefore,  that  a  diftindion  fhould 
be  made  between  the  terms.  Our  tranflators  made  a  diftindion. 
They  rendered  mn*"  The  Lord,  and  put  it  in  capitals ;  and  "»J^^? 
my  Lord,  in  common  letters.  If  a  farther  difcrimination  be  deemed 
expedient,  let  fome  other  term  be  ufed  to  exprefs  '»i"nN ;  and  I  fee 
no  one  fo  proper  as  Sir.  It  will,  perhaps,  be  faid  that  the  term  Is 
too  trite  and  familiar  j  but  It  Is  not  more  fo  than  ^J"l'^^?  muft  have. 
been  in  Judea ;  nor  can  It,  on  that  account,  be  more  improper  in 
the  Old  Teftament  than  In  the  New ;  where  we  have  "  Sir,  thou 
"  haft  nothing  to  draw  with,"  John  iv.  1 1 .  And  In  the  fame  chap- 
*'  ter,  "  Sir,  give  me  this  water. — Sir,  I  perceive  thou  art  a  pro- 
"  phet. — Sir,  didft  not  thou  fow  good  feed  in  thy  field,  &c."  And 
in  the  plural,  Ads  xxvii.  21.  *'  Sirs,"  (faid  St.  Paul)  "  ye  fhould 
*'  have  hearkened  unto  me ;"  and  v.  25.  "  Wlaerefore,  Sirs,  be 
"  of  good   cheer."     The  Greek  indeed  Is  here  avifn ;  but  If  the 

*  In  the  prefent  Maforetic  text,  indeed,  and  even  long  before  the  exiftence  of  the 
Mafora,  we  frequently  find  ^JIIK  for  n^iT'  (though  with  confiderable  variation  in 
the  manufcripts  j ;  but  we  owe  this,  I  fufpect,  to  the  fuperftition  of  the  Jews.  There  is 
not  a  fmgle  inftance  of  it,  I  believe,  in  the  Samar.  Pentateuch.  See  a  curious  paflage 
relative  to  this  matter  in  Mr.  White's  tranflation  of  the  Preface  to  the  Arabic  Hcxa- 
plur  Pentateuch,  in  the  Bodleian  Library — Letter  to  the  Bifliop  of  London,  p.  22. 

Apoftle 


[    57    ] 

Apoftle  had  fpoke  in  Hebrew,  it  would  have  been  lynn.  At 
any  rate,  the  term  has  the  authority  of  our  laft  tranflators.  Nay, 
we  meet  with  it,  once  at  leaft,  in  the  Old  Teftament.  "  O  Sir," 
(faid  Jofeph's  brethren  to  the  Steward)  "  we  came  indeed  down  at 
the  firft  time  to  buy  bread."  Gen.  xliii.  20.  I  would  therefore  pro- 
pofe  ufing,  throughout,  the  word  Lord  for  nin\  and  the  word  Sir* 
for  ^TTIH. 

It  has  been  well  remarked  by  Le  Cene  and  others,  that  naied  is 
often  too  ftrong  an  expreflion  for  ni^^ ;  and  yet,  perhaps,  we  have 
not  in  our  language  a  fuitable  modifying  term.  The  fame  obferva- 
tion  is  applicable  to  tym.  r\:i  j^T-  rhy.  TpO.  Dip.  TO^T-  S^^-  "|"13,  &c. 
which  we  often  find  it  impoflible  to  render  with  that  degree  of  pro- 
priety we  wifh :  Is  not  Horace's  maxim,  then,  of  innovating  a  little 
here  applicable  ?  And  might  not  a  tranflator  be  allowed  to  borrow 
from  other  languages  fuch  terms  as  are  eafily  convertible,  and  rea- 
dily underftood ;  or  to  revive  fuch  obfolete  ones  of  our  own  as 
would  exprefs  the  meaning  with  more  difcriminating  accuracy;  or, 
in  fine,    to  extend  occafioually  the  acceptation  of  words  now  in 

*  This,  however,  can  only  be  done  when  ^jnx  '*  '"  the  compellati\'e  cafe  — 
for  we  do  not  fay,  My  Sir  fuch-a-one,  as  the  French  and  Dutch  do ;  nor  even  Sir 
fuch-a-one,  as  the  Italians  and  Spaniards  do:  and  therefore  we  muft,  in  all  other  cafes, 
render  it  either  My  Lord,  or  My  Majier :  for  Mr.  would  hardly  be  fuiFerabk  in  a 
tranflation  of  the  Bible. 

I  Vl{c^ 


[     58     J 

ufe,  where  there  is  no  danger  of  error  or  confufion  by  fuch  exten- 
fion*. 

Of  Engliih  terms,  that  may  have  been  proper  enough  at  the  time 
our  tranflatlon  was  made ;  but  which  now  feem  to  convey  either  a- 
different  meaning,  or  a  meaning  not  quite  fo  chara<Steriflical  as 
others  that  have  been  fmce  adopted,  I  fhall  content  myfelf  with  giv- 
ing the  following,  as  examples. 

Our  tranflators  were  led  to  render  n^02Nn  h}}  fJlWrn,  Exod.  i.  i6. 
"  And  fee  them  upon  the  ftools ;"  from  its  being  then  cuftomary 
to  deliver  women  on  a  fort  of  ftool  made  for  the  purpofe,  and  kept 
by  the  midwife.  But,  befides  that  it  is  extremely  doubtful  if  p^? 
ever  fignify  a  ftool ;  that  practice  being  now  generally  difcontinued 
in  Britain  f,  and  the  expreflion  "  upon  the  ftools,"  prefenting 
an  idea  very  different  from  that  of  delivery^  fhould  not  the  term  itfelf 
be  changed;  or  rather  another  turn  given  to  the  fentence,  which 

*  Of  this  laft  kind  of  licence,  I  will  jufl:  propofe  one  example:  "  To  divide  light 
"  from  darknefs"  has  always  appeared  to  me  a  term  not  fufficiently  proper  to  exprefs 
the  true  meaning  of  7l!3  in  this  phrafe.  The  Latin  difiinguo  feems  much  more  fuit- 
able.  Why  then  might  we  not  ufe  the  word  dijlinguijh  in  the  fame  fignification  ?  So 
much  the  rather,  becaufe  that  is  really  its  primitive  meaning,  although  it  has  gradually 
loft  it,  and  is  now  feldom  ufed  but  in  a  metaphorical  fenfe.  Your  Lordfhip's  appioba- 
tion  would  go  a  great  way  to  embolden  me  in  taking  a  few  fuch  licences.  See  fotne 
fenfible  reflexions  on  this  fubjedt  in  Maty's  Review  for  June  1786. 

t  The  pra£lice  is  ftill  ufed  in  Holland  and  other  northern  nations ;  and  even  in  the 
Royal  Lying-in  Hofpital  of  Copenhagen,     See  Medic.  Comment.  Vol.  IV. 

ihould 


[    59    ] 

fliould  fufficlently  exprefs  Its  meanlrxg  without  being  liable  to  future 
mifconception? 

Audience  formerly  fignified  the  aSl  of  hearing ;  and  fo  it  was  ufed 
by  Milton  ;  but  as  it  now  feems  obfolete  in  that  meaning,  (hould 
we  not  fubftitute  hearing  in  its  ftead ;  and  tranflate  Gen.  xxv.  i  o. 
"  And  Ephron  the  Hittite  anfwered  Abraham  in  the  hearing  of  the 
*'  children  of  Heth  ?"  'J'ravail^  too,  for  labour  is  become  altogether 
obfolete.  Yet  both  Bifhop  Newcome  and  Mr.  Blayney  have  re- 
tained it.  "  Get  you  to  the  mountains — Get  you  hence — I  will 
"  get  me  unto  the  Great  One ;"  and  fuch-like  expreflions  appear 
alfo  to  be  juftly  going  into  difufe  ;  and  have  moreover  an  imperious 
and  vulo;ar  air. 


"o" 


Ter adventure  is  a  word  which  we  have  no  occafion  for;  and 
which  is  now  hardly  ever  ufed. 

I  have,  elfewhere,  given  it  as  my  opinion,  that  words  which  wc 
have  once  fairly  adopted  from  other  languages  are,  for  the  moft 
part,  more  noble,  more  expreflive  and  difcriminating  than  our  own 
original  ones.  Thus,  I  think,  to  affemble  is  better  than  to  gather  ioge-' 
ther  ;  convoke  than  call  together,  gratuhoujly  than  freely. 

Meat-offering  was  never  the  moft  proper  term  for  nniO,  but  is 

now  ftill  lefs  fo  from  the  more  limited  acceptation  of  the  %vord 

meat 

I  2  To 


[     ^o     ] 

To  difcover^  or  uncover,  feems  fometimes  ufecl  in  a  fenfe  which  it 
■will  hardly  bear.  Thus  Nahum  iii.  5  •  "  I  will  difcover  thy  fkirts 
"  upon  thy  face."  Or,  as  Bifliop  Newcome  renders,  "  I  will  uncover 
"  thy  fkirts  before  thy  face."  We  cannot,  I  think,  fay  with  propriety 
to  uncover  the  thing  covering,  but  the  thing  covered.  Some  other  term, 
therefore,  fliould  be  found  to  exprefs  the  Hebrew  word  n|?J,  l?oth 

:^   1;,"' 

here  and  in  other  fimilar  places. 

Exalted  feems  to  be  improper,  when  applied  to  material  objects, 
as  "  Every  valley  fhall  be  exalted."   Ifaiah  xl.  4. 

The  word  unto  feems  frequently  mifufed  in  our  prefent  verfion. 
It  has  there  four  different  acceptations.  For  firft,  it  marks  the  da- 
tive cafe :  "  Unto  Adam  he  faid."  Secondly,  it  denotes  motion  to  a 
pkce :  "  And  Mofes  went  up  unto  the  mountains."  Thirdly,  it 
precedes  the  fartheft  extreme  of  local  fituatinn  :  "  From  the  river 
*'  of  Egypt  unto  the  great  river."  Fourthly,  it  is  placed  before  the 
laft  period  of  time :  "  Since  the  days  of  Jofhua  unto  that  day." — 
Now  I  fhould  think  that  it  is  proper  only  in  the  fecond  and  third 
examples ;  but  not  in  the  firft  and  fourth  j  where  to  and  until  appear 
to  be  more  grammaticaL 

Are  the  words  wherefore^  therefore,  whemn,  therein,  whereof, 
thereof  whereby,  thereby,  whereunto,  thereunto,  heretofore,  theretofore, 
and  other  fuch-like  compounds  to  be  retained  ?  To  be  convinced 
that  they  are  not  ftridly  grammatical,  we  have  only  to  analyze  them, 
for  who  could  bear,  for  there,  for  where,  in  where,  in  there,  of 

where:. 


[     6i     ] 

where,  of  there,  &c  ?  And  yet  I  fear  we  cannot  well  do  without  them, 
particularly  the  two  firft. 

The  word  there  is  alfo  frequently  ufed  in  another  manner,  the 
propriety  of  which  might  be  queftioned ;  and  where  indeed  it  feems 
to  be  a  mere  expletive.  Thus  when  we  fay,  "  There  was  a  man 
*'  in  the  land  of  Hus :"  we  fay  no  more  than  "  A  man  was  in  the 
"  land  of  Hus."  And  when  we  fay,  "  Let  there  be  light — Let  there 
"  be  a  firmament,  &c." — We  might  fay  "  Let  light  be  —  Let  a 
*'  firmament  be" — or  even  "  Be  light — Be  a  firmament." — And  in 
the  imperative  mood  we  frequently  ufe  this  more  regular  mode  of 
expreffion,  efpecially  in  poetry;  but  in  the  indicative,  it  would 
feem  uncouth,  and  perhaps  at  firft  ridiculous,  becaufe  our  ears  are 
not  accuftomed  to  it. 

Some  think  that  the  expletives,  do,  doth,  did,  are  often  a  beauty, 
in  as  much  as  they  add  a  particular  emphafis  to  the  expreffion ;  and 
your  Lordfhip  has  given  countenance  to  this  opinion  in  your 
Elements  of  Englifh  Grammar.  Is  it  founded  in  nature  ?  and  would 
not  Gen.  iii.  13.  be  as  forcibly  rendered,  "  The  ferpent  beguiled 
"  me,  and  I  ate  ;"  as  "  The  ferpent  beguiled  me,  and  I  did  eat  ?"  It 
feems  ftill  more  fuperfluous  in  fuch  texts  as  the  following.  Gen.  vi. 
17.  "I  do  bring  a  flood  of  waters  upon  the  earth."  Gen.  xxvi. 
30.  "  And  he  made  them  a  feaft,  and  they  did  eat  and  drink." 
Exod.  X.  5.  "  And  they  (the  locufts)  did  eat  every  herb  of  the  field." 
In  general,  then,  would  it  not  be  better  to  reftrid  it  entirely  to  ne- 
gative 


[       62       ] 

gative  fentences ;  or  at  moft  to  extend  it  to  a  concefllon  or  ftrong 
affirmation  ?  Thus,  Jofhua  ii.  4.  might  be  rendered  "  There  did 
come  men  unto  me."  And  Gen.  xviii.  15.  is  very  properly  "  Nay, 
"  but  thou  didft  laugh." 

Is  the  expreflion  "  to  take  to  wife"  reconcileable  with  any  rules 
of  grammar  or  analogy?  And,  if  not,  how  are  we  to  tranflate 
HK^nS  Bph  ?  Dr.  Goflet  fuggefls  "  to  take  for  a  wife,"  as  he  thinks 
to  marry  would  hardly  be  endured ;  yet  our  tranflators  have  ufed 
it  in  2  Chron.  xiii.  2.  where  they  render  nia^^r  V^IN  D^K^i  l'?  iiV'>\ 
*'  and  married  fourteen  wives."  See  alfoGen.  xix.  14.  Num.  xii.  i. 
and  I  Chron.  ii.  21. 

If  we  at  all  retain  the  word  befeech^  fhould  not  the  preterite  be- 
fought  be  at  leaft  exploded ;  and  bejeeched  ufed  inflead  of  it  ? 

Our  tranflators,  for  the  moft  part,  carefully  diftinguifhed  the  no- 
minative plural  j'f  from  the  accufative _)'<?«;  fhould  not  due  regard  be 
ftill  paid  to  this  diftindion,  in  fpite  of  the  propenfity  of  our  prefent 
writers  to  negledt  it  ?  Would  you  not  alfo  retain  the  termination  eth 
in  the  third  perfon  fmgular  of  the  indicative  mood  ? 

I  would,  alfo,  fain  perfuade  myfelf,  that  we  fhould  not  confound 
nor  ufe  indifcriminately,  the  terms  lo  and  behold.  The  former  I 
would  employ,  when  there  is  nothing  in  the  narrative  immedi- 
ately pointed  at ;  the  latter,  when  fome  objed  is  indicated  as  pre- 


[     63     ] 

fent.  Thus  I  would  fay,  "  Behold  the  man — Behold  the  Lamb  of 
"  God :"  but  "  Lo  !  I  bring  a  deluge — Lo !  it  was  Leah — Lo  !  it  be- 
"  came  a  ferpent."  So  that  Lo  may  be  always  confidered  as  a  mere 
interjedion  ;  Behold  as  the  imperative  of  a  verb.  Is  this  diftindtion 
more  than  ideal*  ? 

The  definite  article  the  feems  to  be  often  inferted  where  it  fhould 
not  be  inferted.  Thus  Gen.  i.  6.  "  God  faid ;  let  there  be  a  fir- 
mament }  and  let  it  divide  the  waters  from  the  waters:"  It  fhould 
be  "  Waters  from  waters,"  as  our  older  tranflators  have  it.  Deut. 
XX.  5,  6.  "  Left  he  die  in  the  battle,"  {hould  be  "  Left  he  die  in 
"  battle;"  and  fo  they  have  it  in  the  next  verfe.  On  the  other  hand, 
they  have  omitted  it  where  it  fhould  not  be  omitted.  Thus  Ecclef. 
xxii.  6.  "  But  ftripes  and  correction  of  wifdom,"  fhould  be  "  The 
ftripes  and  corredlion,  &c."  Nor  is  this  omifTion  always  of  fmall 
moment.  A  notable  example  occurs,  Rom.  ii.  12.  where  the  omif^ 
fion  of  the  article  not  only  marsf  the  meaning,  but  gives  an  air  of 

*  This  interjection,  fo  extremely  frequent  in  the  Hebrew  writings,  is  fometimes 
rendered  by  the  ancients,  efpecially  by  St.  Jerom,  by  an  equivalent  term.  Thus 
Gen  xxix,  25.  for  TWilh  N\~l  H^ni  "^pDD  TT'I,  the  Vulgate  has  "  fafto  mane 
vUit  Liam."  And  Syr.  >n  N"**?!  N?m  Nlfl^  NIH  IDT;  and  when  the  morning  came, 
and  he  faw  that  it  was  Lia,  &c.  This  licence,  I  think,  may  be  occafionally  ufed, 
particularly  when  the  interjeftion  is  repeated  in  the  fentence  j  and  thereby  embar- 
rafies  it.  Sometimes  a  tranfpofition  will  have  the  fame  good  effed ;  and  fometimes 
it  may  be  accounted  a  pleonafm,  and  omitted. 

t  According  to  Johnfon  tljis  word  is  obfolete.  But  why  is  it  obfolete?  I:  was 
ufed  by  Shalcefpeare,  Milton,  Waller,  andDryden;  is  a  Teutonic,  nay  a  Hebrew 
radical  word ;  and  even  in  its  found  more  expreffive  of  the  meaning  than  any  of  its 
fubllitutes.     Let  us  not  always  be  biafled  by  ufage  or  authority. 

impiety 


[     64     ] 

impiety  to  the  paffage:  "  For  as  many  as  have  fmned  without  law, 
"  fhall  alfo  perifh  without  law."  This  omiflion  is  the  more  re- 
markable, as  in  the  counterpart  of  the  fame  verfe  the  article  is  pro- 
perly reftored  :  "  And  as  many  as  have  fmned  in  the  law,  fhall  be 
"  judged  by  the  law:"  that  is,  the  law  of  Mofes. 

Your  Lordfhip's  authority  has  greatly  contributed  towards  leftor- 
ing  the  conjundlive  mood  to  its  original  place,  after  the  hypothe- 
tical particles  if,  though,  tinlefs,  except,  &c.  and,  confidering  how 
little  variety  of  termination  our  verbs  have,  I  would  by  no  means 
difpoflefs  it  of  its  juft  claim.  But  thofe  particles  are  not  always 
hypothetical ;  and,  therefore,  to  join  them  always  with  the  fub- 
jundive  (as  many  writers,  who  wifh  to  be  thought  more  than  com- 
monly corred,  affed  to  do)  feems  to  be  an  impropriety.  I  would, 
with  your  Lordfhip,  make  this  diftindlon.  When  the  phrafe  is 
evidently  conditional,  expreffing  a  doubt  or  depending  on  a  con- 
tingency, the  fubjundive  fhould  ever  be  ufed :  but  when  a  con- 
cefTion,  which  is  equivalent  to  an  affirmation,  is  included  in  the  fen- 
tence,  I  would  uniformly  ufe  the  indicative.  If  this  obfervation  be 
allowed  to  be  juft,  it  is  plain  that  its  application  will  be  of  great 
latitude. 

There  is  nothing,  I  believe,  in  our  language  more  undetermined 
than  the  ufe  of  the  infeparable  prepofitions  in  and  tin.     The  former 
is  evidently  borrowed  from  the  Latin  j  and,  in  many  inftances,  re- 
tains 


[     65     ] 

tains  with  us  its  Latin  intenfive  fignification :  whereas  the  latter  is 
of  Saxon  origin,  and  is  always  a  privative.  Since  then  we  are  pof- 
fefled  of  a  privative  prefix  of  our  own  ftock,  and  fince  it  is 
perfeftly  fufficient  for  the  purpofe,  it  may  be  pertinently  afked, 
why  we  (hould  not  exclufively  employ  it  to  denote  privation  ;  and 
confine  the  other  to  fuch  words  only,  as  being  derived  from  the  Ro- 
man tongue,  ftill  retain  their  intenfive  meaning  in  ours*  ?  It  will  be 
faid,  perhaps,  that  although  this  rule  be  eftabllfhed  on  principles 
of  general  analogy,  it  muft  ncceflarily  be  liable  to  many  excep- 
tions. When  the  prefix  coalefces  with  a  word  of  which  the  initial 
is  an  /,  an  ;?/,  a  ^,  or  an  r,  euphony  has  introduced  the  ufage  of 
changing  the  n  of  the  prepofition  into  one  of  thofe  letters :  now  it 
would  be  extremely  harfh  and  uncouth  to  read  and  write  ullegible, 
umineafurable,  urrejijlible^  &c.  That  fuch  a  pronunciation  and 
orthography  would,  at  firft,  appear  harlh  to  the  unaccuftomed  ear, 
and  ftrange  to  the  unaccuftomed  eye,  I  readily  grant ;  yet  there  is, 
in  reality,  no  more  harfhnefs  nor  oddity  in  tdleglble  than  in  ntilllty, 
in  ummcafurahk  than  in  mummery^  in  urremed'uible  than  in  currency. 
But  there  is  no  need  for  introducing  this  novel  form;  feeing  we 
have  already  fuch  a  multitude  of  words  in  which  the  n  retains  its  own 
fhape  and  found,  in  words  beginning  with  the  forementioned  let- 
ters ;  without  our  perceiving  any  degree  of  cacophony  or  incongruity. 

*  Examples :  'infrigilcl!,  infufcatiy  ingemii:ati^  imincrge,  he.  But  this  difference 
is  better  illuftrated  by  contraft :  incarcerate  and  uncarcerate  j  inchain  and  unchain ; 
infold  and  unfold,  &C. 

K  For 


[    66     ] 

For  furely  we  may  fay  and  write  unkgibk  as  well  as  unlearned,  un- 
lettered, unWidinous  \  tmmeafureable  ^^vidliLi  unmerciful ;  and  unreme- 
d'tahle  as  well  as  unrebuked.  And  was  not  Shakefpeare's  unreconcile- 
able  (Anth.  and  Cleop.  Ad  v.  Sc.  i.)  more  proper  and  as  harmonious 
as  our  irreconcileable  f  I  wifh  our  profefled  grammarians  would  take 
this  matter  into  confideration,  and  give  us  fome  confiftent  princi- 
ples to  be  guided  by. 

I  have  obferved  a  mode  of  phrafing,  that  now  feems  to  prevail ; 
which,  neverthelefs,  I  am  apt  to  confider  as  a  real  folecifm.  It  is 
to  fupprefs  the  little  word  it  in  fuch  fentences  as  the  following : 
"  Now  that  this  of  the  two  is  the  better  glofs,  //  is  proved  by  your 
'*  own  interrogation."  So  Chillingworth,  and  the  writers  of  his 
time  ;  but  our  moderns  would,  in  imitation  of  the  Latins,  make  the 
firft  part  of  the  fentence  the  nominative  to  the  verb ;  and  write, 
**  That  this  of  the  two  is  the  better  glofs,  is  proved,  &c.'*  Change 
only  the  order  thus :  "  Now  it  is  proved  that,  &c."  and  the  neceC- 
fity  of  retaining  the  it  will  be  manifeft. 

Another  ftill  greater  impropriety  feems  to  be  creeping  in  upon  us, 
from  our  French  neighbours ;  and  is  already  found  in  writers  of 
repute.     It  confifts  in  beginning  a  fentence  with  an  infulated  no- 
minative, which  has  no  correfponding  verb;  as,  "  Born  a  poet,  verfes 
4  "  coft 


[    67    ] 

"  coft  him  nothing. — Irafcible  beyond  credibility,  the  fmalleft  con- 
"  tradition  put  him  in  a  paflion."  I  know  not  if  there  be  any 
thing  more  oppofite  to  the  genius  of  our  language  than  fuch  a  con- 
ftrudtion*. 

Notwithftanding  all  that  has  been  written  by  our  moft  recent 
grammarians  about  Jlmll  and  w/7/,  would  and  JJjould^  it  does  not  ap- 
pear to  me  that  there  are  yet  any  criteria  eftablifhed  to  dired  us  in 
the  ufe  of  them.  Your  Lordfhip  has  jiiftly  obferved  that  our  an- 
ceftors,  even  as  late  as  the  reigns  of  James  and  the  Charlefes,  re- 
fpedlively  employed  them  in  a  different  manner  from  that  of  the 
prefent  time  ;  and  I  cannot  help  thinking  that  the  ufage  of  our  an- 
ceftors  was,  in  fome  regard,  preferable  to  ours. 

In  disjuniflive  fentences,  fhould  we  ufe  or  or  fior  after  not  and  nei- 
ther ?  The  nature  of  negatives  feems  to  require  nor-,  yet  I  have  fre- 
quently obferved,  even  in  thofe  writers  who  affume  to  themfelves 
the  peculiar  province  of  corredtors  general  of  ftile  and  grammar 
fuch  expreffions  as  thefe :  "  Neither  he  or  any  one  elfe. — Neither  the 
"  one  or  the  other  of  thefe  aflertions,  &c."  To  me  this  appears  un- 
grammatical. 

*  This  cannot  be  called  the  cafe  abfolute ;  becaufe  the  fubjell  is  the  fame  in  both 
parts  of  the  fentence ;  and  the  predicate  and  the  fubjed  muft  necefTarily  be  in  the 
fame  cafe. 

K  2  One 


[  ^^  1 

One  query  ftill  remains  about  the  orthography  of  proper  names. 
Our  firft  tranflators  of  the  Bible,  Tindal   and   Coverdale,   retained 
the  old  pronunciation  of  the  proper  names,  fuch  as  they  found  it   in 
the  Greek  and    Latin  verfions,   with   Uttle  variation  and  few  ex- 
.ceptions.     Thus  they  wrote  Heva,  Noe^  Jared,  Mathujala^  Nemrod, 
Ni»eve,  Cades,  Cades-Barne,    Berfabe,    Boo%,    Ifa'i,  Elizeus,    Salomon, 
j^ggeus,  Ofeas.     In  fome  inftances,  they  followed  the  French  form ; 
Efaye,  Jeremie,  Zachary,  Ahdy,  Sophony,  &c.  Sometimes  they  adopted 
the  Maforetic  mode  of  pronunciation ;  as  Zoar,  Serug,  Terah,  Peleg, 
&c.  A  farther  approximation  to  this  laft  form  was  made   in   Cran- 
mer's  and  Parker's  Bibles ;  particularly  in  thofe  names  that  were  lefs 
knov/n,   and  confequently  lefs  apt  to  ftrike  or  furprife  the  people 
by  a  new  found,  while  the  more  celebrated  were  retained  in  their 
old  orthography.     But  the  Engliih  refugees  at  Geneva,  taking  the 
French  Calvinifls  for  their  model,  fcrupuloufly  adhered  to  the  Mafo- 
retic punctuation,  in  their  expreffion  of  the  proper  names,  and  as 
much  as  pofBble  to  the  literal  founds  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet,  fuch 
as  modern  grammarians  exhibit  them.     James's  tranflators  generally 
adopted  their  plan,  but  with  many   modifications,  either  to  avoid 
cacophony,  or  not  to  deviate  too  widely  from  the  founds  to  which 
the  people  had  been  fo  long  accuflomed.     They  did  not,  therefore, 
write  Meihufael,  Sheth,  EnoJ}},  Shem,  I%hak,  Jaakob,  Rebekah,  Rahel^ 
"Nappon,  &c.  Yet,  in  general,  they  followed  the  Geneva  plan,  both 
in  this  and  moft  other  particulars ;  as  may  be  feen  by  any  one  who 

fhall  take  the  trouble  to  compare  them. 

Since 


L     69    1 

Since  that  period  little  innovation  has  been  attempted  In  the 
Hebrew  names,  except  by  Bate,  with  whom  Henoch  is  Heme,  Jared 
Oirad,  Adah  Odeh,  Zillah  yilleh.  Ems  Aiwjli,  Chenaan  Canon,  Lot 
Luthy  Zoar  or  Segor  Juar,  Kphron  Oprun,  yudah  Jeudeh,  Aaron 
Aorun,  Zadok  Jaduk,  Bethel  Bith-al,  &c.  &c.  Uncouth  as  this 
orthography  may  feem  to  be,  it  was,  not  without  fome  fpecious  rea- 
fons,  adopted  by  Bate.  He  wifhed  to  exprefs,  as  nearly  as  pofTible, 
what  he  took  to  be  the  genuine  original  powers  of  each  Hebrew 
letter,  defpifing  not  only  the  Maforetic  pronunciation,  but  alfo  that 
of  the  moft  ancient  interpreters,  who  lived  at  a  time  when  the 
Hebrew  was  yet  a  fpoken  language.  Now  he  fhould  have,  In  this 
refpeft,  defpifed  neither  the  one  nor  the  other ;  but  either  have  re- 
tained the  proper  names  as  he  found  them  in  the  common  verfion, 
or  at  leaft  corre<n:ed  them  on  better  authority  than  his  own  capri- 
cious ideas. 

Is  it  unexpedient  then  to  make  any  change  at  all  in  the  prefent 
orthography  of  the  Hebrew  proper  names  ?  I  fay  not  that ; 
but  I  think  the  change  fhould  be  natural,  analogical,  and  founded 
on  orthography,  reafon,  or  ancient  authority.  It  were  certainly 
to  be  wifhed  that  every  name  could  be  fo  written  in  a  verfion, 
as  to  be  diftinguifhed  even  by  its  found,  and  exprefs,  as  nearly 
as  poffible,  the  powers  of  the  Hebrew  elements  that  compofe  it ; 
and  this  has  been  more  or  lefs  attempted  by  the  mofl  wary  and 

cautious 


'[     70     ] 

cautious  tranflators.  But  then  the  names  muft  not,  even  for  this 
analogical  difcrimination,  be  fo  ftrangely  metamorphofed,  as  not  to 
be  known  again  for  the  fame.  This  indeed  will  rarely  happen, 
if  we  do  not  give  a  new  pronunciaton  to  the  vowel  founds  ;  I  mean 
the  real  vowels  K-  H-  V  *>•  ]}■  and  their  feveral  combinations.  Of  all 
thefe,  as  it  is  impoflible  to  know  precifely  their  various  powers 
in  the  mouth  of  an  ancient  Jew,  the  bell  we  can  do  is  to  found 
them  as  they  have  been  handed  down  to  us,  whether  by  the  ancient 
interpreters  or  Jewifh  grammarians ;  no  great  matter  which.  Thus 
though  avh?  would  feem,  if  I  pronounce  each  letter  feparate,  to 
be  expreffed  by  Aiub  (and  fo  Bate  would  probaby  have  written  it) 
yet  I  will  continue  to  call  it  Job,  or  at  leaft  lob ;  becaufe  I  find  all 
the  ancients  fo  exprefs  it ;  and  becaufe  in  reality  there  is  nothing 
uncommon  in  thofe  letters  taking  that  found.  In  fad,  if  we  pro- 
nounce /  in  Job  as  we  do  in  lamhlcks^  we  fhall  give  it  the  very 
found  which  the  Italians  give  to  ai;  and  if  we  pronounce  the  o  as 
our  0  fhort,  it  will  not  differ  from  u  fhort.  Were  our  proper  name 
George  to  be  treated  by  an  Oriental  as  we  treat  the  Oriental  names, 
and  expreffed  in  thefe  letters  HilJ^nj,  it  would  be  fo  altered  as  not 
to  retain  a  fingle  found  of  the  original,  excepting  that  of  r. 

I  am  therefore  of  opinion,  that  we  fhould  retain  the  old  names 
with  as  little  variation  as  poffible.  The  only  innovations  I  would 
propofe  are  the  following :  The  H  I  would  always  exprefs  by  h\  the 
D  by  ch  \  the  p  by  ^  or  ^ ;  the  tl^  byyZ' ;  the  \  by  z;  and  the  tj  by  /j, 

or 


•       [     71     ] 

or  z  with  a  point  above  it.  This  would  be  fufficient  to  dillinguilh 
the  funilar  confonant  founds.  And  as  the  b  at  the  end  of  proper 
names  ending  with  H  is  ufelefs,  I  would  only  retain  it  to  diflinguifh 
mafculines  from  feminines,  as  Judah  from  Debora^  &c. 

Before  I  leave  the  fubje£l  of  proper  names,  I  muft  obferve,  that 
we  are  now  fo  accuftomed  to  place  the  definite  article  before  thofe 
of  rivers  and  mountains,  that  they  look,  fomehow,  naked  without 
it.  Yet  this  mode  has  not  yet,  I  believe,  been  introduced  into  any 
Englifti  verfion ;  and  it  would,  perhaps,  be  by  fome  accounted  a 
blameable  innovation  to  write  "  The  Euphrates,  The  Nile,  The 
"  Jordan,  The  Chobar,  The  Lebanon,  The  Carmel,  The  Thabor,  &c." 
Perhaps  we  fhould  make  a  diftindlion.  When  the  name  mentioned 
is  not  attended  with  its  appellative  rivety  and  is  the  nominative  or 
objedive  of  a  verb,  the  article  fhould  be  prefixed ;  but  when  river 
is  immediately  joined  to  it,  or  when  it  is  in  concord  or  regimen  with 
another  noun,  the  article  fhould  not  be  prefixed. 

The  orthogi-aphy  of  a  proper  name  being  once  fixt  upon,  it  ihould 
be  retained  throughout  the  whole  Bible,  both  in  the  Old  and  New 
Teftament ;  although  there  may  be  a  variety  of  lettering  it  in  the 
originals.  Sec  Bifliop  Newcome's  Preface  to  the  Minor  Prophets, 
p.  XXXV  i. 


With 


[     T-     ] 

With  regard  to  fuch  expreflions  in  the  original  Scriptures  as, 
if  tranflated  literally,  would  offer  to  the  mind  of  the  delicate  and 
pious  reader  offenfive  images ;  I  make  no  doubt  but  your  Lord- 
fhip  will  agree  with  me,  that  they  ought  to  be  accommodated  to 
our  times  and  manners,  and  rendered  with  more  freedom  than  any 
other  paffages.  Exemplification  here  is  unneceffary.  But  I  (hould 
be  glad  to  know,  whether  in  this  clafs  your  Lordfliip  would  include 
fuch  phrafes  as  the  following,  int^N  Vy^^  XKh\<  N2,  nom  nx  nnD- 

csmntfioS^,  &c. 

Thefe,  my  Lord,  ai-e  a  part  of  the  principal  doubts  and  dif- 
ficulties that  have  occafionally  prefented  themfelves  during  the 
courfe  of  my  prefent  labours.  I  lay  them  before  your  Lordfhip 
with  all  that  confidence  which  your  former  encouraging  coun- 
tenance fo  naturally  infpires.  If  health  and  leifure  fhall  allow 
you  but  to  glance  them  over,  I  am  perfuaded  that  a  great  por- 
tion of  the  mill  will  he  diflipated  by  fo  clear  and  keen  a  ray. 
I  wifli  not  to  give  your  Lordfhip  the  trouble  of  writing  long  re- 
marks. The  fhorteft  hint  of  approbation  or  the  contrary;  a 
fingle  yes  or  no  on  the  oppofite  page,  relative  to  any  query  I 
have  put,  or  opinion  I  have  ventured  to  give,  will  be  a  fufficient 
indication  of  your  fentiment,  and  go  a  great  way  to  make  me 
cherllh  or  abandon  my  own.    Before  next  Michaelmas  I  hope  to  have 

the 


I    73    1 

the  honour  of  fubmkting  to  your  perufal  a  whole  volume  of  ray 
tranflation.  How  happy  (hall  I  efteem  myfelf,  if  it  fhould  have  the 
good  fortune  to  merit  the  fame  flattering  approbation  you  were  fo 
kind  as  to  exprefs  of  my  Profpeilus.  Whether  that  be  in  my  fate, 
or  not,  I  eagerly  feixe  this  opportunity  of  teftifying  to  the 
Public,  with  what  retpeO.  and  veneration  I  have  the  honour 
to  be, 

MY     LORD, 

Your  Lordship's 

Much   obliged. 

And  moft  obedient, 
Humble   Servant, 


A.        G     E     D     D     E    S. 


London, 
January  15,  1787. 


POSTSCRIPT. 


[    7S    ] 


POSTSCRIPT. 


JcL  V  E  R  ready  to  own  and  redify  my  miftakes,  to  fupply  omif- 
fions,  or  to  anfwer  rational  queries,  I  take  this  occafion  to  make  the 
following  additions  to  my  Prospectus  which  was  lately  publifhed ;  and 
in  which  I  am  forry  to  find  more  typographical  and  other  errors,  than,  on 
too  flight  a  reading  over  of  the  fheets  as  they  came  from  the  prefs,  I  had 
occafionally  obferved. 

Page  2,  line  5,  after  agreed  upon,  add  what  follows  : 

A  late  ingenious  EfTayift*  has,  indeed,  given  it  as  his  opinion,  that  a 
new  tranflation  of  the  Bible  is  not  only  unnecefTary,  but  even  dangerous, 
nay  extremely  dangerous ;  and  that,  inftead  of  ferving  the  caufe  of  religion, 
it  would  tend  to  hurt  it :  and  a  more  recent  writer,  of  no  common  abili- 
ties, in  the  Monthly  Review,  has  adopted  and  enforced  the  fame  fenti- 
ment.  It  may  not  therefore  be  improper  to  hear,  and  fairly  appretiate,  their 
argviments. 

*  Knox's  Effays,  Vol.  I.  No.  49. 

L  2  In 


[     7^    1 

In  the  filft  place,  the  "  venerable  antiquity"  of  our  prefent  public  verfion 
is  urged  as  a  reafon  fufficient  for  retaining  it,  with  all  its  faults. — This,  in 
the  mouth  of  a  Proteftant,  feems  to  be  an  odd  fort  of  argument.  If  a 
Romanifl  had  ufed  it  in  favour  of  his  Vulgate,  he  would  be  inftantly  told, 
"  That  no  age  nor  prefcription  can  authorize  error ;  and  that  it  is  obftinac}' 
"  to  defend  in  any  verfion,  however  ancient  or  venerable,  what  cannot  be 
"  rationally  defended."  In  fa6t,  the  lapfe  of  thirteen  centuries  has  given  no 
more  real  value  to  the  Vulgate,  than  it  had  when  it  firft  appeared ;  nor  is 
our  prefent  public  verfion  more  eftimable  now  dian  it  was  an  hundred  and 
feventy-fix  years  ago.  If  time  could  enhance  the  value  of  a  tranflation, 
Tyndal's  would  be  preferable  to  James's ;  for  it  can  boaft  at  leaft  two 
hundred  and  fifty  years,  and  a  part  of  it  two  hundred  and  fixty.  And 
old  Wicliff  might  fliake  his  hoary  locks,  and  fay,  "  I  have  a  much 
"  better  claim  than  either." 

But  it  is  further  urged,  "  That  independently  of  age,  and  the  air  of 
"  veneration  which  it  has  thence  acquired,  our  prefent  verfion  ought  to 
**  be  retained  for  its  intrinfic  beauty  and  excellence.  The  language, 
"  though  it  is  fimple  and  natural,  is  rich  and  exprefllve.  The  poetical 
*'  paffages  of  Scripture  are  peculiarly  pleafing.  The  tranflation  of  the 
"  Pfalms  abounds  with  paffages  exquifitely  beautiful.  Even  where  the 
"  fenfe  is  not  very  clear,  nor  the  connexion  of  ideas  at  firft  fight  obvious, 
"  the  mind  is  foothed,  and  the  ear  ravifhed,  with  the  powerful  yet  unaffefted 
"  charms  of  the  ftyle,  &c." 

Although  this  panegyric  be  fomewhat  cutre,  I  am  willing  to  fubfcribe  to 
it.  But  all  thofc  beauties,  in  an  equal  degree,  and  fome  of  them  even  in 
a  greater  degree,  are  found  in  our  firft  verfions,  and  muft  be  more  or  lefs 
found  in  every  verfion  of  the  Hebrew  fcriptures  that  is  not  a  mere  para- 
phiafe.  The  great  merit  of  James's  tranflators  did  not  certainly  confift  in 
beautifying  or  meliorating  the  ftyle  of  the  former  verfions,  but  in  corredl- 
ing  their  errors,  and  making  a  verfion  more  ftriftly  conformable  to  the 
letter,  not  always  the  fpirit,  of  their  fuppofed  indefedible  originals.  Their 

fidehty 


[  11  ] 

fidelity  and  accuracy  dcferve  giFcat  commendation ;  and  that  is  almoil;  all 
they  have  a  jufl  claim  to.  The  ftyle  they  found  in  their  prototype ;  and 
the  ditflion  and  phrafeology  they  borrowed  from  their  predeceflbrs  in  tranf- 
lation  :  and  it  was  well  that  they  had  fuch  models ;  for  their  own  preface 
evinces  that  their  tafte  was  none  of  the  beft.  We  have  indeed  fome  diffi- 
culty to  believe  that  it  could  be  written  by  the  fame  perfons. 

What  is  btautiful,  what  i%  excellent,  what  is  melodious  and  ravijhing  in  the 
prefent  verfion,  Ihould  be  undoubtedly  retained  by  all  future  tranflators ; 
but  is  there  any  reafon  for  retaining  its  corruptions,  its  mif-tranflations,  its 
obfcurities,  and  its  other  acknowledged  impcrfeftions  ?  I  fcarcely  think, 
that  its  mofl  partial  admirer  will  contend  for  this.  The  judgment  made 
by  Mr.  Knox,  from  a  comparifon  of  a  late  verfion  of  Ifaiah  with  that  of  the 
public  tranflation,  is  not  altogether  jufl.  He  fhould  have  confidered, 
that  the  intention  of  the  learned  Prelate,  in  giving  that  verfion,  was  to 
exhibit  a  fpecimen  of  Hebrew  metre,  clothed  in  a  correfponding  Englilh 
drefs,  and  reprefenting  as  nearly  as  poffible  the  meafure,  the  conftrudtion, 
the  air,  and  complexion  of  the  original.  From  this,  and  from  the  novel 
and  awkward  appearance  of  fo  many  unequal  and  unmeafured  Englifli 
lines,  and  the  many  unnatural  breaks  and  unexpaflcd  paufes  that  thence 
enfue,  it  frequently  happens,  1  confefs,  that  the  old  tranflation  is  more 
pleafant  to  read ;  the  order  and  arrangement,  too,  appear  often  to  be 
more  harmonious ;  and  fometimes,  though  rarely,  the  terms  feeni  more 
properly  chofen.  But  how  fully  is  all  this  compenfated  by  the  clearnefs, 
precifion,  and  energy  of  the  Bifhop's  verfion,  and  the  many  correftions 
of  a  faulty  or  mif-tranflated  text  ?  Lei  this  \  erfion  be  taken  out  of  its 
prefent  form,  and  divided  and  arranged  like  plain  poetical  profe ; 
and  the  leaft  intelligent  reader  will,  I  think,  be  ftaick  with  the  diffe- 
rence. 

But  the  moft  fpecious  objcAion  is  derived  from  the  danger  of  fcanda- 
Uzing  the  Chriftian  people,  and  weakening  their  faith,  by  prefenting  thenv 

with 


[    78    ] 

•with  a  new  or  improved  verfionof  the  Scriptures.  "  We  have  received  the 
*'  Bible"  (fays  the  fame  amiable  writer)  "  in  the  very  words  in  which  it  now 
*'  ftands,  from  our  fathers ;  we  have  learned  many  paflages  of  it  by  heart 
*'  in  our  infancy;  we  find  it  quoted  in  fermons  from  the  earheft  to  the 
*'  lateft  times,  fo  that  its  phrafe  is  become  familiar  to  our  ear,  and  we 
<«  ceafe  to  be  ftartled  at  apparent  difficulties.  Let  all  this  be  called  pre- 
"  judice,  but  it  is  a  prejudice  which  univerfally  prevails  in  the  middle 
<'  and  lower  ranks;  and  we  (hould  hardly  recognize  the  Bible,  were  it  to 
*'  be  read  in  our  churches  in  any  other  words  than  thofe  which  our  fathers 
«'  have  heard  before  us."  —  Again,  "  If  the  leflbns  of  the  Church  were 
*'  to  be  read  in  different'  words  from  thofe  which  they  have  heard  from 
"  their  infancy,  their  faith  might  be  more  endangered  than  by  all  the  argu- 
*'  ments  of  the  Deifts." 

This  is  an  old  objedion  *  ;  it  was  made  by  St.  Auguftine  to  St.  Jerom. 
The  people  of  that  day,  who  had  received  from  their  fathers  the  Bible  in 
the  words  of  the  old  Italic  tranflation,  were  aftonilhed,  and  fome  of  them 
fcandalized,  on  hearing  the  new  verfion  read  in  the  churches ;  and  a  cer- 
tain African  Bilhop  raifed  a  tumult  in  his  congregation,  by  fubftituting  he- 
dera  for  cucurbita  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  Jonah. 

Whether  any  of  our  good  people  would  be  as  zealous  for  the  word 
gourd,  experience  only  can  decide ;  but  if  fuch  ill-founded  prejudices  really 
exifl  among  them,  it  is  the  fault  of  their  teachers;  and  their  teachers 
fliould  ferioufly  labour  to  remove  them.  The  people  fliould  be  taught 
(for  they  are  not  indocil)  that  it  is  to  the  meaning,  and  not  the  words,  of 
Scripture — to  the  fenfe,  not  the  found,  that  they  ought  to  attend — That  a 

It  is  worth  remarking,  that  objeftions  of  the  fame  nature  have  been  made  againft  tranfla- 
ting  the  Scriptures  at  all.  "  A  number  of  pious  but  weak  Chriftians  will  be  fcandalized, 
"  will  have  their  faith  fliaken,  will  be  perverted  to  herefy ;  therefore  let  the  Scriptures  rc- 
'■'■  main  locked  up  from  them,  to  prevent  thefe  evils." 

4  tranffa- 


C    79     ] 

translation  of  the  Bible,  like  all  other  tranflations,  is  fufceptible  of  further 
and  further  improvement — That  the  languages  in  which  the  Scriptures  were 
originally  written,  are  now  better  underftood  than  when  the  laft  tranflation 
was  made — That  the  originals  themfelves  have,  by  the  diligence  and  la- 
bours of  the  learned,  been  reftored  more  nearly  to  their  firft  integrity — and 
that,  by  thefe  means,  a  number  of  difficult  paflages  may  be  illuftrated, 
obfcurities  removed,  objedions  obviated ;  and  the  Divine  oracles  made 
more  intelligible  to  every  capacity.  All  this  the  people  have  a  right  to 
know ;  and,  knowing  all  this,  they  will  not  only  be  not  averfe  to  a  new 
tranflation,  but  expert  it  with  eagernefs,  and  receive  it  with  pleafure ;  with 
a  pleafure  proportioned  to  their  zeal  and  devotion.  For  as  to  that  clafs  of 
devotees,  if  fuch  there  be,  who  believe  that  our  prefent  verfion  was  written 
with  the  finger  of  the  Almighty ;  and  that  to  alter  a  tittle  of  it,  is  to  be  guilty 
of  blafphemy,  it  would  be  worfe  than  weak  to  encourage  their  prejudices ; 
it  would  be  to  abet  a  real  blafphemy,  for  fear  of  incurring,  in  their  extrava- 
gant ideas,  the  imputation  of  an  imaginary  one. 

The  truth  is,  as  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  learn,  that  the  people  in 
general  are  fufficiently  fenfible  o(  the  expediency  of  a  new  verfion,  or  a 
thorough  revifal  of  the  old  one.  There  are  few,  even  of  the  loweft  clafs, 
who  have  not  heard  of  the  imperfedlions  of  the  public  verfion;  our  preach- 
ers are  conftantly  correfting  particular  paflages  in  it.  Bible-hiftories  and 
Family-expofitors,  without  number,  are  difperfed  all  over  the  kingdom, 
in  which  many  mif-tranflations  are  corrected,  or  pretended  to  be  fo ;  and 
yet  the  people  read  them  with  avidity,  and  even  with  enthufiafin.  In 
fliort,  the  prejudices  of  the  people  againft  an  improved  verfion  either  do 
not  exift  at  all,  or  are  fuch  as  may  be  eafily  removed,  or  deferve  not  to 
be  regarded  *.     Indeed  if  the  above  objeftions  had  come  from,  writers  lefs 

refpeftable,  I  fhould  have  paid  no  attention  to  them. 

Taking 

*  That  the  prejudices  of  the  people  are  not  fo  ftrong  as  Mr.  Knox  feems  to  think,  and 
that  they  are  not  fo  eafily  fcandiilized  on  hearing  the  Scriptures  read  in  words  different  from 

the 


[     8o     ] 

Taking  it  for  granted,  then,  that  a  new,  or  at  leaft  an  improved  verfion 
of  the  Scriptures  is  wanting,  and  wanted ;  it  is  my  intention,  in  tlus  Pro- 
fpeftus,  to  explore,  &c. 

Page  5.  1.  laft,  inculcate  to;  I  ara  not  fure  but  it  fliould  be  incul- 
cate on. 

Page  8.  1.  15.  The  word  unclinch  has  been  objcifled  to  as  inelegant,'  I  fear 
it  is  alfo  improper ;  perhaps  undo  might  be  fubftituted.— In  the  note  of  the 
fame  page,  for  averjion,  read  an  averfion. 

Page  10.  1.  16.  for  lafi,  read  latter. 

Page  13.  1.  26.  for  exculpating  them  of,  read  exculpating  them  from. 

Page  16.  1.  20.  for  is,  read  be. 

Page  18.  1.  20.  for  that  they  could,  read  //  they  could. 

Page  20.  reform  the  note  thus  —  Three  volumes  of  this  work  are  now 
(1786)  publiflied.  The  firft,  befide  a  fenfiblc  preface.  Canons,  and  Clavis 
or  catalogue  of  the  MSS.  ufed  by  the  author,  contains  various  readings  on 
Genefis,  Exodus,  and  Leviticus^ — the  fecond  carries  them  to  the  end  of 
Kings  —  the  third  contains  the  Prophets  and  Megilloth  —  and  the  fourth, 
which  is  now  in  the  prefs,  will  contain  the  reft.  It  were  to  be  wifhed  that 
De  Roffi  had  been  lefs  fparing  of  his  various  ledtions ;  for  he  has  only 
given  thofe  which  he  deemed  of  importance  :  whereas  we  want  to  know 
the  real  ftate  of  his  MSS.  and  thence  to  judge  for  ourfelves  what  readings 
are  important,  what  not, 

'  the  prefent  tranflation,  we  have  a  daily  and  flagrant  proof  before  our  eyes ;  and  that  too 
with  refpeft  to  a  part  of  Scripture  that  is  more  frequently  read  and  repeated  than  any  other. 
The  words,  and  even  the  ftyle  of  the  Pfalms,  in  the  book  of  Common  Prayer,  are  more 
different  from  thofe  in  the  Bible,  than  they  can  well  be  in  any  improved  tranflation  ;  nay, 
the  very  Decalogue  itfelf  is  exprefled  in  different  terms ;  and  yet  I  never  heard  that  any  one 
was  fcandalized  at  this  difference,  or  in  either  did  not  recognize  the  Bible.  The  Bible  mull 
"be  fadly  traveftied  indeed,  in  a  tranflation,  before  it  ceafe  to  be  recognizable. 

Page 


[    8i    1 

Page  29.  for  Hexapla,  read  Pclypla. 

Page  32.  1.  22.  read  Jeptuaginta. 

Page  34.  laft  line,  for  ?«/«5r  /lo^/j,  read  minor  prophets^ 

Page  35. 1  have  too  rafhly  adopted  the  general  prejudice,  that  the  editors 
of  the  Complutenfian  Polyglott  did  not,  in  their  edition  of  the  Septuagint, 
adhere  to  their  MSS.  I  am  at  prefent  of  a  different  opiiiion;  which, 
I  truft,  I  fhall  be  able  to  eflablini  on  the  ftrongeft  intrinfic  evidence. 

Page  37.  1.  13.  after  fmall  o5lavo,  add,  and  laftly  at  Leipfick, 
by  Reineccius,  in  1757,  on  a  fmall  but  elegant  type,  in  8vo. ;  with 
fele(fl  various  readings  from  the  Alexandrian  copy. 

Page  40.  1.  10.  after  completed^  add.  It  is  hoped  the  learned  editor 
wUl  be  requefted  and  encouraged  to  give  the  reft  of  this  ancient  MS.  in 
the  fame  form. — Ibid,  in  the  next  note,  Borgia  is  called  by  miftake  pre- 
fe£l  of  the  propaganda ;  it  fhould  be  Jecretary. 

Page  44.  1.  2 1 .  for  Dominican  friars,  read  Augtiftinian  friars. 

Page  48.  1.  10.  for  paraphrafe,  read  theloojeji  paraphra/e ;  and  add,  in  a 
note — As  an  example  of  this,  take  Gen.  xlvii.  26.  Ex  eo  tempore  ujque  in 
prefentem  diem,  in  univerfa  terra  Egypti,  regibus  quinta  pars  Jolvitur ;  et  fac- 
tum eft  quafi  in  legem ;  abfque  terra  facerdotali,  qua  libera  ab  hac  conditions 
fuit.     Compare  this  with  the  original. 

Page  57. 1. 19.  add,  Indeed  fuch  emendations  are,  ftridly  fpeaking,  more 
than  conjecture.  They  arife  from  a  fort  of  intrinfic  evidence,  of  the  ne- 
gative kind  at  leaft,  which  often  is  fufficient  to  exclude  all  fort  of  doubt, 
and  almoft  always  to  force  a  rational  aflent. 

M  Page 


[      82      ] 

Page  6 1 .  I  had  ventured  to  ufe  the  word  vocable.    Some  have  approved 
of  it,  as  a  term  we  wanted ;    others  have  objefted  to  it,  as  an  innova- 


tion. 


Page  75.  1.  I.  for  was,  read  is ;  and  page  79.  line  lafl,  read — ^was  repub- 
liflied  at  Leipfick,  with  the  Hebrew  text,  in  two  volumes  in  quarto,  in 
1740. 

Page  82.  1.  15.  for  we  are,  read  /  am. 

Page  94.  1.  4.  after  text,  add,  A  ftriking  example  occurs,  Exod.  xxxii. 
18,  where  there  are  no  lefs  than  eleven  words  in  Italics,  which  not  only 
give  no  force  to  the  paflage,  but  prefent  a  falfe  idea ;  for  who  would  not 
think,  on  reading  it,  that  the  words  Jhout,  cry,  fmg,  correfponded  to  Ip  many- 
plural  participles,  and  were  equivalent  to  fljouters,  criers,  fingers  ?  See  the 
place,  and  compare  it  with  the  original. 

Page  98.  1.  5.  I  have  ufed  the  word  forces  in  a  meaning  hardly  admiffible 
in  EngliQi ;  read  therefore  Jlrength  or  abilities. 

Page  99.  1.  2.  Add,  Mr.  Dawfon  has  Cnce  publiflaed  the  fixth  and 
eleven  following  chapters  of  Genefis,  on  the  fame  plan. 

Page  1 00.  1.  9.  after  merit,  add,  Particularly  an  anonymous  one,  printed 
for  Millar  in  1751  ;  and  that  of  Dr.  Hodgfon,  jull  now  publiflied.  Ibid,  in 
the  note,  add,  and  the  lafl  number  (No;  IV.)  contains  more  good  remarks  on 
particular  paffages,  from  Genefis  to  the  Proverbs  inclufively,  than  any  work 
of  the  fame  fize  in  our  language. 

Page  102.  1.  3.  "  The  fynod  of  Thouloufe  is  called  a  diocefan  fynod:" 
this  is  an  overfight ;  it  was  certainly  a  provincial  fynod  :  and  the  following 
is  the  odious  conftitution  alluded  to  :  Prohibemus  etiam,  7ie  libros  Veteris 
Teflamenti  aut  Novi  Laid  permittantur  habere:  nifi  forte  Pfalterium  vel 
Breviarium  pro  divinis  ojiciis,  aut  Horas  B.   Maria  ali^uis    ex  devotione 

habere 


[     83     ] 

habere  velit ;  fed  ne  pramijfos  libros  habeant  in  vulgari  tranjlatos,  arEliJfxmi 
vihibemus.  Concil.  Tholofan.  cap.  xiv. — It  is  worth  remarking,  that  this 
fame  Council  feem  to  have  been  the  fiifl  authors  of  a  rehgious  Inquifuion. 
See  Capitula,   i,  z,  3,  4,  5,  6,  &c.  apud  Labbe,  tom.  xi.  p.  427. 

Page  109.  1.  laft,  add,  WichfF's  tranflation  of  the  New  Teftament  was 
piibHihed  by  Lewis,  in  folio,  in  1731.  His  prefs- copy  was  collated  with 
ten  MSS.  the  principal  various  readings  of  which  are  marked  Iq  the  mar- 
gin. Befide  the  manufcripts  of  Wicliff's  verfion,  at  Cambridge,  Oxford, 
and  in  the  Britifh  Mufeum,  there  is  a  beautiful  copy  of  the  New  Teftament 
in  the  Advocates  Library  at  Edinburgh ;  and  one  of  the  feven  Catholic 
Epiftles  in  the  Univerfity  Library  of  Glafgow. 

Page  1 13.  1.  13.  Reform  the  whole  paflage  thus :  The  Abbe  du  Contant 
de  la  Molette  has,  fince  the  year  1777,  publilhed  the  following  works  on 
the  Holy  Scripture:  La  Geneje  Expliqiie,  3  vol.  12  mo.  UExcde  Expliquc, 
3  vol.  Le  Levitique  Explique,  2  vol.  Les  Pfeaimes  Expliquh,  3  vol.  In  all 
which  works,  though  he  has  retained  Calmet's  verfion  made  from  the  Vul- 
gate, he  is  continually  correcting  it  either  by  the  Hebrew  text,  or  by  the 
other  ancient  verfions ;  and  Co  far  his  work  may  be  accounted  a  tranflation 
from  the  originals.  The  Journal  dcs  S^avans  of  lall  year  announces  two 
new  French  verfions  of  the  Pfalms;  one  in  eight  vol.  i2mo.  by  Bertliier, 
the  other  in  two  vol.  by  Bauduer,  both  faid  to  be  eflimable  works  j  and  of 
which  the  latter  is  immediately  made  from  the  Hebrew. 

Page  125.  1.  24.  in  the  note,  efface  Durell;  he  Ihould  not  have  been 
placed  in  fuch  company. 

Page  128.1.  2S.r&a.d  energetic. 

Thefe  are  the  moft  important  corredlions  and  alterations  that  now  it  ocau's 
to  make.  There  are  many  other  little  inaccuracies  of  lefs  note  ;  particularly 
in  the  orthography  of  proper  names,  which  tie  printer  has  ftrangely  meta- 

M  2  morphofed. 


C     84     3 

morpliofed,  but  wliich  the  learned  reader  is  requefted  to  correft  thus : 
Amama,  Doederlein,  Oujeel,  Maldenhauer,  Villoijon,  Men'wjki,  Semkr^ 
Bjornjihal,  &c. 

I  have  now  only  to  return  my  hearty  thanks  to  thofe  gentlemen,  who, 
fmce  the  publication  of  my  Profpeftus,  have  favoured  me  with  their  friendly 
advice  and  affiftance  in  the  profecution  of  my  arduous  undertaking;  and  to 
anfwer  fuch  queries  as  have  been  made  to  me  by  anonymous  correfpon- 
dents,  to  whom  I  knew  not  how,  otherwife,  to  dired  an  anfwer. 

To  Sir  William  Jones,  of  Ramfbury,  Bart.  I  am  indebted  for  the  early 
communication  of  a  manufcript  commentary  on  the  whole  Bible ;  in  which, 
although  there  be  not  much  criticifm,  there  is  a  great  deal  of  good  fenfe, 
and  many  pertinent  reflections. 

Mr.  Bradley,  of  Oxford,  befide  fcveral  excellent  remarks  on  particular 
paflages  of  Scripture,  has  favoured  me  with  a  complete  verfion  of  Jeremiah; 
of  which  he  will  fee,  in  due  time,  that  I  have  profited. 

Mr.  Winftanley,  and  Mr.  Croft,  of  the  fame  place,  will  permit  me  to 
acknowledge  my  rcfpcaivc  obligations  to  them. 

Mr.  Dimock,  of  Gloucefter,  has  fent  me  his  very  judicious  obferva- 
tions  on  a  great  part  of  the  Bible ;  accompanied  with  fuch  expreflions  of 
friendftiip  as  I  can  never  forget. 

To  the  politenefs  of  Colonel  Vallancey  I  owe  fome  curious  obferva- 
tions,  and  the  difcovery  of  a  valuable  fragment  of  the  Greek  verfion  of 
Ifaiah,  kept  in  the  library  of  the  Univer£ty  of  Dublin. 

From  fome  other  gentlemen,  who  have  not  chofen  to  let  themfelves 
be  known,  I  have  jeceived  fonoe  ufeful  hints  which  fhall  be  duly  attend- 

■ed  «o, 

The 


{^5    1 

The  plan  of  a  Commentary,  fuggefted  by  Erafmus,  from  Dublin,  would 
be  an  excellent  one  for  a  profeffed  commentator  ;  as  far  as  a  mere  tranf- 
lator  is  concerned,  he  will  find  tliat  I  have  followed  it. 

T.  B.  and  a  Protejtant  Divine  (whom  I  have  fince  found  to  be  a  re- 
fpeclable  clergyman  of  the  church  of  Scotland)  feem  furprifed  at  the  libe- 
rality of  fentiment  that  pervades  my  Profpe5ius ;  but  ftill  have  their  fufpi- 
cions,  that  a  profeffed  Catholic  cannot  be  an  impartial  translator  of  the 
Scriptures.  At  this  I  am  not  aftonilhed.  I  know  many  Catholics,  who 
entertain  fufpicions  equally  unfavourable  with  regard  to  Proteftants :  and 
perhaps  there  are  few,  on  either  fide,  who  are  entiixly  diverted  of  fuch 
prejudices.  I  have  profeffed  no  more,  in  that  refpeft,  than  what,  1  truft. 
1  fhall  be  able  to  perform ;  only  let  not  my  caufe  be  prejudged. 

Another  gentleman,  who  affumes  the  name  of  Origen,  is  afraid  that  I  am 
about  to  facrifice  the  interefts  of  Mother  Church,  by  expofing  the  faults  of 
a  verfion  which  fhe  holds  in  fuch  high  eftimation,  and  which  the  Council 
of  Trent  has  declared  to  be  authentic  Scripture.  To  this  I  anfwer,  that 
as  I  will  by  no  means  affedl  to  conceal  the  faukb  uf  the  Vulgate,  fo  nei- 
ther will  I  affect  to  expofe  them.  I  will  give  the  beft  tranflation  I  can  of 
what  I  take  to  "be  the  moft  genuine  copy  of  the  originals,  without  mind- 
ing how  much  it  may  differ  from  any  verfion  whatfoever.  If  this,  and 
what  I  have  faid  in  my  ProJpeSlus,  p.  104,  be  not  fufEcient  to  allay 
Origen'%  fears,  I  muft  leave  them  to  be  difpelled  by  time  and  re-con- 
fideration. 

To  the  writer  of  a  card,  recommending  the  perufal  of  Wakefield's  En- 
quiry,  I  have  to  fay,  that  I  have  carefully  perufed  it;  and  that  the  plea- 
fure  I  received  from  that  perufal  would  have  been  much  greater,  if  the 
author  had  enforced  his  favourite  fyftem  with  lefs  violence. 

4  From 


[     So     ]       - 

From  feveral  perfons  I  have  received  advices  about  the  occonomy  of 
my  work.  One  counfels  me  to  make  my  verfion  as  fbidly  literal  as  poffi- 
ble ;  another,  to  make  it  perfedlly  free.  The  former  fays  I  fliould  retain 
all  the  Hebraifms,  however  uncouth  and  obfcure  they  may  feem  ;  the  latter 
is  for  retaining  not  one  of  them.  It  would  be  impoflible  for  me  to  follow 
both  thefe  counfels,  and  therefore  I  fliall  follow  neither. 

A  Northumberland  correfpondent  hopes  I  will  not  omit  to  infert  Canne's 
marginal  references.  This  I  can  by  no  means  comply  with  :  a  great  num- 
ber of  Canne's  references  are  chimerical,  and  ferve  only  to  ci-owd  the 
page,  and  bewilder  the  reader.  But  I  will  infert  fuch  references,  as  I  think 
real  and  ufeful  ones ;  and  confequently  retain  the  greater  part  of  thofe 
that  are  in  the  margins  of  the  bell  editions  of  our  prefent  public  verlion. 

I  am  afked  by  Philohiblos,  if  I  mean  not  to  give  a  fmall  edition  without 
the  critical  notes,  for  the  ufe  of  thofe  who  may  not  be  able  to  purchafe  tire 
large  one  ?  Alas !  I  know  not  yet  what  encouragement  I  may  have  to 
give  ON  E  edition.  When  I  fliall  have  publifned  my  Propjals  (which  will 
be  next  winter)  and  feen  how  they  arc  icliflicd,  it  will  then  be  time  enough 
to  think  of  extending  my  plan. 

'  The  Critical  Reviewers  (Jan.  1787)  may  indeed  "reft  fecure,"  that 
as  little  deviation  as  poffible  will  be  made  from  the  langxiage  of  the  prefent 
Terfion ;  to  which,  in  fafl,  my  tranflation,  at  every  new  touch,  more  and 
more  approximates. 

In  fetting  about  to  tranfcribe  my  MS.  for  the  prefs,  I  find  fome  diffi- 
culty in  fixing  upon  the  moft  proper  difti-ibution  of  the  page  j  and  fliould 
be  glad  to  have  the  opinion  of  the  learned  on  that  head.     For  example, 
fhould  the  various  readings  and  renderings  be  feparated  from  the  explana- 
tory 


[     87    1 

tory  notes,  or  mixed  wicli  them  in  the  order  in  which  they  occur?  Should 
either,  or  both,  be  printed  in  columns  ?  Should  every  note  begin  a  new 
line  for  the  fake  of  diftindion  ;  or  be  feparated  only  by  a  dafh  for  the  fake 
of  fparing  paper  ? 

Some  of  my  learned  fnends  are  for  having  the  explanatory  notes  only  at 
the  bottom  of  the  page ;  and  for  throwing  all  the  reft  among  the  critical  re- 
marks; leaving  only  in  the  text  the  refpedive  fymbols  of  addition,  fubtrac- 
tion,  corredtion,  or  variation.  This  would  certainly  fave  me  a  great  deal  of 
labour;  but  would  not,  I  fear,  be  fo  fatisfaflory  to  the  reader.  When  we  fee 
a  referential  mark  in  the  text  of  a  work,  we  are  glad  to  find  the  reference  as 
readily  as  poffible ;  and  naturally  look  for  it  on  the  fame  page.  I  am 
therefore  apt  to  think,  that  moft  readers  will  be  pleafed  with  a  diftribu- 
tion  that  fpares  them  the  trouble  of  conftantly  turning  to  the  end  of  a  vo- 
lume, to  feek  in  a  large  field  of  critical  difculTion,  what  they  wifh  to  {ee 
at  one  glance. 

Few  are  capable  of  weighing  tlie  motives  and  examining  the  foundations 
on  which  a  correftion  of  the  prefent  text  has  been  made ;  or  why  fuch  a 
reading  has  been  preferred  by  the  translator  to  fuch  another  reading  :  but 
almoft  all  are  capable  of  underftanding,  and  have  a  right  to  know,  that 
fuch  a  corredion,  and  fuch  a  reading,  are  made  on  fuch  and  fuch  autho- 
rities. 

Such,  at  leaft,  is  the  light  I  view  things  in ;  by  putting  myfelf  in  the 
fituation  of  thofe  who  are  not  acquainted  with  the  learned  languages; 
but  who  yet  make  a  ferious  ftudy  of  the  Scriptures,  and  are  defirous 
of  knowing  the  real  flate  m  which  they  have  been  handed  down  to  us. 

Let  me,  once  more,  intreat  thofe  gentlemen  who  have  by  them  any 
remarks  on  panicular  palTages  (which  they  mean  not,  diemfelves,  to  pub- 
li(h)  to  be  fo  kind  as  to  communicate  them.  They  Ihall  be  thankfully 
received,  and  fairly  acknowledged. 

FINIS. 


BO  3      .0  ^ 


DEC 

IN 


University  of  Calilomia 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hllgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


fiON-BENEWABLE 

uu-  v\rru\ 

Jan  2  9  2002 
DUE  2  WKS  FROM  DATE  RECEIVED 


L 


& 


U^lT^CCESS  SERVICES  BLI9 

fnterH^fsry  Loans 

Research  Library 

90095-1 575 


c 


ONIVEKSITY  oiv^    u 

AT 
LOS  ANGKLES 


OtWlA 


Miiiiimllisljr 
0    000 


iiiiliim 


^"385 


1 


iiiiiiiiii 

ill 


^|! 


I 


^i 


■ — UniversitJ 


Soutte 


liitiiiijiik 


Ut#A«A{Mfc#HMfcit#ina